Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DYER FUND.

Colonel YATE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India for what reason instructions were issued by the Government of India forbidding civil and military officers and officials in India to subscribe to the Dyer Fund; under what law was this Order issued; and was it issued with his approval?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India reported to mo in July that they had issued instructions, to the effect stated, under Rule 22 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, of which I will publish a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The instructions were not referred to me before issue. Rule No. 3 appears to be also relevant, and I am circulating it with the other.

The following are the Rules referred to:—

RULE 3.

A Government servant may not, without the previous sanction of the local Government, receive any complimentary or valedictory address, accept any testimonial presented to him or attend any public meeting or entertainment held in his honour, nor may he take part in any similar acknowledgment of the services of any other Government servant, or of any person who has recently quitted the service of Government.

The rule admits of the following exception:—

(a) The head of any Government or Administration may receive an address.
(b) At the request of any public body a Government servant may sit for a portrait, bust, or statue not intended for presentation to him.
(c)A Government servant may take part in the raising of funds to be expended, in recognition of the services of another Government servant, on the foundation of a scholarship or other public or charitable object, or on the execution of any portrait, bust, or statue not intended for presentation to such other Government servant. He may not, however, solicit subscriptions for the purpose.
(d) A Government servant may take part in a private farewell entertainment, attended only by personal friends, as a mark of regard to himself when retiring from the service or quitting a district or station, or to another Government servant in similar circumstances.

RULE 22.

A Government servant may not take part in, or subscribe in aid of, any political movement in India, or relating to Indian affairs. Nor may he attend any political meeting his presence at which is likely to be misconstrued, or to impair his public usefulness. When there is room for doubt whether any action which a Government servant proposes to take will contravene the provisions of this rule, he should refer the matter for orders to the local Government to which, or the Government servant to whom, he is immediately subordinate.

OFFICERS' PENSIONS.

Colonel YATE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that officers of the Indian Army who accepted the option given them by the Indian Government of relinquishing their claim to colonel's allowances and in lieu thereof receiving, on completing 38 years' service, a pension of £750 per annum, or £50 per annum more than the full pension given to other Indian Army officers who were not eligible for colonel's allowances, are now being deprived of the option they exercised and are not being paid that extra £50 per annum, he will state, how the Indian Government proposed to recoup these officers for their claim to colonel's allowances which they relinquished?

Mr. MONTAGU: No expectation was held out to the officers referred to that in any future revision of the pension
rates for officers of the Indian Army they would continue to receive £50 a year more than officers of the same length of service who entered the Indian Army after 1st July, 1881. But if any of these officers now drawing pensions at the higher rates wishes to reconsider his decision, and to revert to the position of an unemployed officer on £700 per annum, awaiting his chance of succession to the colonel's allowance I should be prepared to consider such an application, subject to the refund of the difference already drawn between the pension at the higher rate and the unemployed pay of £700 a year

Colonel YATE: If any officers accept the offer of the India Office, instead of waiting for the chance of succession to a colonel's allowance, is it fair to deprive them of the £50?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think that everything has been done quite fairly. These questions are considered carefully and I have no reason to think that anything unfair has been done, but I make this offer now for the consideration of these officers.

SEDITION SENTENCES (REMISSION).

Colonel YATE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether Pir Mahbub Shah was recently convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in Sind for advocating the expulsion of the British by force; whether the sentence was remitted and whether this was part of a general policy of clemency approved by the Secretary of State; whether Zafar Ali Khan was convicted in the Punjab last month for seditious writing and sentenced to five years transportation; and whether the same clemency will be shown in his case?

Mr. MONTAGU: Pir Mahbub Shah was convicted and sentenced as stated for sedition, in respect of a violent speech advocating Jehad. His sentence was remitted on his signing a declaration of his repentance with a promise to make no more speeches of the kind and to remain obedient and loyal to the Government. The answer to the third part is, the remission of his sentence was not initiated from here: to the fourth part, yes; to the last part, I have received no intimation that it is intended to release Zafar Ali Khan.

Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask whether in regard to the release in question, the administration of Sind was not overruled by the Governor of Bombay?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not propose to concern myself with these allegations. The responsibility is that of the Governor of Bombay, and I propose to approve and accept responsibility for the action taken by him.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the Administrator of Sind has since been removed from office?

Mr. MONTAGU: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question. I do not propose to intervene between the Governor of Bombay and his officers.

Colonel BURN: Is there any guarantee that Pir Mahbub Shah will abide by his promise?

Major GLYN: Is it not the fact that the whole of these circumstances were gone into very carefully by Sir George Lloyd, and that as a result of his action there has been no further outbreak of sedition?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am given to understand that the position in Sind has improved materially. I would ask the House to realise how difficult it is to answer questions of this kind. If I refuse to answer them suspicious-minded people think that the action has been promoted from India. If I answer them there might be an impression that I am throwing over those who acted on their own responsibility. In this case I have answered that the action was not initiated by the India Office, and I accept full responsibility for and if necessary give my approval to the action that has been taken.

Colonel YATE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the truth of what was said in the "Times" yesterday, that it is to ignorance and fanaticism that the appeals of Gandhi are being made, and how dangerous it is in a country like India to allow those appeals to go unchecked?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think that ignorance and fanaticism are very dangerous things whether in India or on the benches in this House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Which benches?

CIVIL SERVICE.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has yet done any thing in accordance with the recommending of the Joint Committee on Indian Reforms to give members of the Indian Civil Service an option of retirement on proportionate pensions; and whether he is aware that there is an increasing number of Civil servants who wish to take advantage of this recommendation?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India will shortly receive a despatch from me in answer to one in which they forwarded Memorials. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there is grave discontent amongst the senior ranks of the Indian Civil Service in regard to pensions; and whether he will publish the accounts of the pensions fund at the date of its termination?

Mr. MONTAGU: Memorials on the subject have been addressed to the Government of India, and I expect to receive very shortly their considered views regarding them. As to the latter part of the question, I am not sure if the hon. Member realises that no fund has existed since 1874, when the assets and liabilities of the old Civil Annuity Funds were transferred to the Secretary of State, who undertook that subscribers to those funds should be entitled on retirement to annuities at certain rates subject to certain conditions.

Major GLYN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the advisability of issuing the necessary orders to ensure that all members of the Indian Civil Service shall be compelled to take leave home at least once in every six years; whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to how many Indian civil servants continue at duty without having had leave for the last 10 years; and what are the causes of this state of affairs?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think that the issue of any compulsory orders to
the effect suggesed would be altogether practicable or likely to commend itself to members of the Indian Civil Service. During the War a number of officers of that and other Civil Services were absent from India on military service and of those who remained many could not be granted leave. It is now being granted more freely, a special concession in respect of privilege leave has been sanctioned in the case of those detained in India during the War, and tin; leave rules in general have recently boon made more liberal and flexible. I would not propose to circularise the several Governments to obtain the information asked for, but will send to the Government of India copy of the question and this reply.

ARMY CHAPLAINS (PAY).

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if the pay of the chaplains in the Indian Amry is now quite insufficient to enable married chaplains in many parts of India to provide themselves and their families with the common necessaries and comforts of existence in the trying climate which many of them have to endure?

Mr. MONTAGU: An improved scale of pay for the chaplains on the Indian ecclesiastical establishments was sanctioned by me in September last to take retrospective effect from the 1st December, 1019. The minimum pay is now Rs. 600 a month and the maximum Rs. 1,300 a month, as compared with the previous limits of Rs. 480 and Rs. 1,000 a month, respectively. The Government of India are making the new rates widely known by a public announcement.

ARMY RE-ORGANISATION.

Major GLYN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Army in India Committee has already caused to be put into operation an immense new scheme without public discussion, without counting the cost, without any reference to Parliament, or even without the publication of the views of the Government of India?

Mr. MONTAGU: The scheme referred to appears to be that for four commands instead of two in India and for the redistribution of subordinate commands and districts. The facts are that the complete scheme was placed before the Army in India Committee by the Government of
India while the Committee was at Delhi, with a request that they would express an opinion upon it. The scheme has since been approved by the Government of India and by myself in Council after consultation with Lord Rawlinson and will shortly come into force. I understand that as a whole it does not involve extra expenditure.

Major GLYN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not advisable to put Part 5 of the Committee's Report into operation as soon as possible?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the debatable parts of this Report, other than those already carried out, will not be carried out until the Report has been discussed in this House?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Report of the Army in India Committee is now under consideration by a committee of the Council of India. After that committee of the Council has concluded such consideration the Report will come before the Cabinet. After that I am sanguine enough to hope that the objects pursued by the Esher Committee, the improvement of the conditions of service in and the organisation of the Indian Army will be no longer debatable.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My right hon. Friend knows what I mean by "debatable." The debatable point I mean is in relation to the General Staff. Will he give an undertaking that that shall not be carried out until it is debated? It is a vital alteration of the relations of the Indian Army.

Mr. MONTAGU: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House. I will undertake that the deliberations of His Majesty's Government arising out of these reports will be published before any action is officially taken, and in sufficient time for this House to make an appeal to the Leader of the House for an opportunity to discuss the matter.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Thank you.

Colonel YATE: Is not Part 5 of this report within the competence of the Government of India? Cannot that be carried out at once without waiting for Parliamentary sanction?

Mr. MONTAGU: As far as my recollection goes, Part 5 involves considerable expenditure of money and the various projects involved must be considered in the order of their importance as funds are available. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I am determined to carry out as quickly as possible any recommendations that will improve the conditions of service in the Indian Army.

Major GLYN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the statement in the Report of the Army in India Committee to the effect that the centre of gravity of probable military operations has now shifted from the West to the East, and that in future we must contemplate the possibilities of our Armies operating in the Middle East, based partially on India and partially on Home; and whether the Government concur in that opinion?

Mr. MONTAGU: The statement referred to was not (as has been erroneously stated) the opinion of the Committee, but that of a minority of its members, and it has no direct bearing on the recommendation of the Committee as a whole. The Report is now under consideration by a committee of the Council of India.

TEA.

Sir J. D. REES: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the present serious position of the Indian tea-producing industries; and whether, in view of the fact that the present heavy loss on cost of production has already led to the abandonment of certain tea estates and must in the immediate future cause the abandonment of many more, and of the fact that this abandonment of a part of the. industry will lead to heavy loss of revenue in India and Great Britain, to the disbandment of largo native labour forces, and the ultimate increased price of tea to the consumer through shortage of supply, he is prepared to give such instructions as may appear advisable and feasible in order to enable the industry to tide over the present crisis?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Viceroy is visiting Assam this month, and I will telegraph the substance of my hon. Friend's question to him.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that this case of profiteering by capitalists shall come before the newly-fledged Indian Labour party?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend is using wide phrases and inviting me to a pledge which I should hesitate to give.

Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the tea of these capitalists is being sold in the United Kingdom at something far below the cost of production?

EXTRA TERRITORIAL ARMY SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India under what conditions the Indian military forces of His Majesty are liable to serve outside the territorial limits of India during periods of war and peace, respectively; and whether in either or both cases the sanction of Parliament to such service is necessary?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Indian Military Forces of His Majesty enlist for general service, and are liable to serve beyond Indian limits during peace or war. The sanction of Parliament is not required for such forces serving outside the territorial limits of India. But, except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of His Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the revenues of India may not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applied to defraying the expenses of any military operations carried on beyond the external frontiers of those possessions by His Majesty's forces charged upon those revenues.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

LOCAL LEVIES.

Sir J. D. REES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the local levies of Mesopotamia are recruited from the bedaween or the fellaheen or from what class or classes of the dwellers in Mesopotamia?

Mr. MONTAGU: The local levies are in most districts recruited from the settled riparian tribes and from townsmen, the majority being tribesmen. The settled tribesmen are cultivators or fellaheen. There are, however, nomadic tribes approximating to the Bedouin type from which levies are recruited in areas where such a type predominates.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that the riparian tribes form some of the best Arab troops that have served in the Turkish Army for 400 years?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think that there is a subsequent question by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Glyn) on which I shall be able to express my appreciation of the levies which have been recruited from the tribes to which the hon. Member refers.

Colonel YATE: Are any efforts being made to recruit levies from the Chaldeans and Assyrians, who rendered such good service in the recent troubles?

Mr. MONTAGU: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would give notice, or, if he prefers, I could refer to the documents and let him know.

Colonel YATE: Thank you.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the present strength of the local Arab levies in Mesopotamia; whether they were used by the Executive during the recent period of insurgence and with what success; whether steps are being taken to increase the size of the force; and what contribution is to be paid from British Army funds in respect of the military duties performed by the levies on behalf of the Army?

Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first part of the question I regret that I have no information more recent than that given to my hon. Friend last Wednesday, but if he wishes I will make inquiries. Levies have ben used during the recent rising with varying success. In the defence of Shahroban, 14th to 15th August, levies behaved with great gallantry, and are believed to have suffered over 50 per cent, casualties in the defence of the Levy Barracks. The garrison of 50 levies resisted for four days attacks by tribesmen, whose numbers are stated to have been 5,000. They were overpowered when their ammunition gave out. In September the following report was received from Sir Arnold Wilson:
I continue to receive most satisfactory reports from Hillah, Nasiriyah, and elsewhere as to behaviour of Arab levies and police wherever they are employed with and under their own British officers whom they know.
As regards future increases to the Force, I have already expressed to the House the hope that the new Administration will take steps to create a Native Army as quickly as possible. A sum of Rs. 18,00,000 had ben asked for in the Civil Budget for 1920–21 as a contribution from Army Funds in respect of quasimilitary duties performed by the levies on behalf of the Army. But the recent disturbances will make a revision of the original estimates necessary.

Lieut. - Commander KENW0RTHY: Would it not be much better rapidly to increase these levies instead of sending out more Rolls-Royce cars to Mesopotamia?

Mr. MONTAGU: We are anxious to increase the levies, but the policy which is being pursued, as I informed the House last week, is to train those whom we have already got in order to make them efficient units before increasing them further than the opportunities for training occur. The policy which the Government is pursuing is to maintain order by means of these levies.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that many of these levies have rendered good service during the War, and are entitled to recognition for their services, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, if any of them are killed or disabled, proper reparation will be made to their widows and dependents?

Mr. MONTAGU: It is very difficult to give a definite pledge in answer to supplementary questions, but I will consider sympathetically the suggestion which the Noble Lord has made.

MERCANTILE MARINE (WAR MEDALS).

Sir C. KINL0CH-C00KE: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say if the men in the mercantile marine are entitled to the 1914 and Victory Medal; and, if so, when the distribution will take place?
On a point of Order. I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that for many years Admiralty questions always came first on the Paper. We have to-day been occupied for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes dealing with Indian questions. Will you
kindly see your way to restore Admiralty questions to their old place on Wednesdays, and, if that is not possible, give Admiralty questions an alternative day for the first place?

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter does not rest with me. It is a matter of arrangement between the hon. Member and the Patronage Secretary.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): Men in the Mercantile Marine are not eligible for the 1914 Star, the award for which is limited to those who belonged to units landed for service in France or Belgium between the 5th August and midnight of the 22nd-23rd November, 1914, but those who served under naval engagements and had the requisite qualifying service are entitled to the 1914–15 Star, the British War Medal and the Victory Medal. These decorations are now in course of preparation, but it is not anticipated that they will be ready for issue this year. A public announcement will be made when distribution is begun.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS' UNIFORMS.

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps have now been taken to cheapen the cost of officers' uniforms and what articles can now be purchased by officers from naval stores?

Sir J. CRAIG: I cannot at present say anything more than that this matter is under consideration. Arrangements are, however, being made to extend the list of articles now stocked for sale to tin Fleet, so as to include articles more particularly suitable for officers, also certain uniform articles for officers, such as blue cloth caps, white caps, waterproof coats, gloves, etc.

ADMIRALTY STAFFS, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a published statement to the effect that there is still in Liverpool a War Vessels Production Department, and also a Department for the purpose of transporting American troops, both still maintaining offices and staffs at considerable expense; and will he make a statement on the subject?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the War Vessels Production Department, I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to the hon Member for Macclesfield on the 21st October. There is no Department at Liverpool established for the purpose of transporting American troops. It is presumed that the published statement referred to the Naval Transport Office at Liverpool, which is located at 30, Canning Place, and which moved from Cunard Buildings on the 31st August, 1920. This office is part of the, pre-War Admiralty establishment which, of course, was greatly expanded during the War. The staff at the Naval Transport Office at present consists of one retired officer, R.N., who acts as principal naval transport officer, one store officer, one transport writer, three civilian writers, two typists, and one orderly. This staff is at present principally employed in dealing with the large amount of transport stores at Liverpool, now being disposed of, also in dealing with outstanding claims referred for investigation. When these duties have been completed the staff can be reduced to its pre-War complement, namely, one naval transport officer and writer-messenger, whose duties in peace time are connected with the oversea conveyance of naval and military personnel.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the separation allowance now paid to seamen of the Royal Navy and to Royal Marines is the same as that paid to the personnel of equivalent ranks of the Army and the Air Force?

Sir J. CRAIG: Separation allowance has now been replaced by marriage allowance. The rates of marriage allowance are identical for the Navy, including Marines, the Army, and the Air Force, and the Regulations as to payment only differ in so far as the conditions of the three Services render some variation necessary.

OFFICERS, MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether
further consideration has been given to the question of making a marriage allowance to married officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines of 30 years of age so as to put them on an equal footing with officers of equivalent rank of the Army and the Air Force?

Sir J. CRAIG: This is at present under consideration.

Commander Viscount CURZ0N: In giving consideration to this matter, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the cost of living has gone up sixty points since the pay of the Navy was last raised?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think that is quite obvious.

Lieut.-Commander KENW0RTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that already there are feelings of dissatisfaction amongst the very loyal men of the Navy owing to the increase in the cost of living, and that the married men are being hard hit?

Sir J. CRAIG: As my answer indicated the question is under consideration and all those relevant subjects are carefully supervised.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (RETIRING AGE).

Major Sir B. FALLE: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a different rule obtains in Woolwich Arsenal as regards the age of employés under the War Office to that followed in Royal Naval dockyards, namely, at the Arsenal men are retired for age at 65, but in the Royal Naval dockyards men are retired at 60; and if it is desirable that the same age should apply to all Government workshops, &c.?

Sir J. CRAIG: The same rule obtains at the dockyards as is understood to obtain at Wolwich Arsenal; and I would draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary of the War Office on the 26th of last month to he hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) regarding the practice at Woolwich.

WAR OPERATIONS (SCARBOROUGH AND DOGGER BANK).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether official reports are to be pub-
lished of the British Fleet operations in connection with the raid by a portion of the German Fleet on Scarborough and of the battle-cruiser action of the Dogger Bank; and whether these Reports will include the battle orders issued by the respective senior officers, track charts, and all relevant signals and information?

Sir J. CRAIG: The reply is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not just as important in the public interest that some report of those actions should be published as well as of Jutland, especially of the very important cruiser action off the Dogger Bank?

Sir J. GRAIG: We must draw the line somewhere. It is asking rather much to have the same trouble and expense in connection with these various actions.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the assurance given by the Prime Minister that no papers to satisfy idle cariosity would be published?

BLACK SEA (MERCHANT SHIPPING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is a Naval Board of Control, or simlar body, at Constantinople to regulate merchant shipping to and from the Black Sea; whether any nations other than the British Empire are represented thereon; if so, which are they, and who are the persons representing the various nations and Governments; whether there is a representative of the Government of General Baron Wrangel; and whether steps are taken to prevent shipping sailing to and from ports under the control of the Russian Soviet Government?

Sir J. CRAIG: An Inter-Allied Port Control exists, and the principal Allied Powers are represented thereon. They are represented by the Allied Captains of the port acting under the orders of the Allied Admirals. There is no representative of the Government of General Wrangel. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers given on the 3rd instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Seaham.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that according to the Press the American Government refused to take part in this blockade, and will this lead to any reconsideration of policy regarding naval control in the Straits?

Sir J. CRAIG: I have not seen the Report referred to as having appeared in the Press, but any question as to the policy of the Allies ought to be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT AND OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION.

Viscount CURZON: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if any agreement has been made with the Officers' Association to prevent overlapping between the Association and the Appointments Department; and whether he will give the terms of such agreement and state when it is to take effect?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir. I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the arrangements which have been mutually agreed.

The following are the details promised:

The terms of the agreement which has been reached between the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour and the Officers' Association are as follows:

(1) The work of finding appointments for ex-officers shall be done solely by the Appointments Department, the Officers' Association confining itself to its other activities of relief work, and transferring its employment branch records to the Appointments Department.
(2) A representative of the Officers' Association shall be appointed to each District Headquarters Office to interview hardship cases, disburse small sums of money in cases of immediate necessity, and receive complaints on all matters.
(3) A military member shall be appointed by the Officers' Association to each panel of business men who interview applicants regarding appointments.

In the provinces, where no organisation or machinery for dealing with employment has yet been set up by the Officers' Association, this agreement is to be put into effect at once; but in London, where the Officers' Association find the position is more difficult, the necessary transfer will be made as soon as possible. It has been agreed, however, that in London, as well as in the country, the Officers' Association will cease forthwith to canvas for vacancies. Employers are asked, therefore, in future to send all vacancies to the Appointments Department Office at Clement's Inn, or to the local district director; and all officers applying to the Officers' Association for appointments will be referred to the Appointments Department. The actual handing over of all papers will take place as soon as possible, but as all vacancies will be sent to the Department, any temporary delay in such handing over will not interfere with the practical merging of the appointments work, as the placings by the Officers' Association are about 35 a week, as compared with 500 by the Department.

EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES (SCOTLAND).

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if any schemes in conjunction with local authorities are being started in Scotland to meet the unemployment of ex-service men, such as improvement of roads or construction of new roads, or employment in house-building in connection with the housing schemes; and if any such schemes are in contemplation in the County of Fife?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Government are pressing forward as rapidly as possible with the schemes announced by the Prime Minister on the 19th October. So far as road schemes are concerned, arrangements have been made between the Ministry of Transport and the Edinburgh and the Dundee town councils for proceeding with arterial road schemes. Work on both these schemes will start very shortly. In addition, there are now under consideration two road schemes for Aberdeen, whilst the position at Glasgow is under review. For improvement of existing roads, I understand that grants of considerable magnitude have been made by the Ministry of Transport since 1st August. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would consult the Ministry of
Transport respecting Fife. As regards the employment of ex-service men in connection with housing schemes, I am in communication with the Scottish Board of Health, and will acquaint my hon. and gallant Friend of the position at the earliest possible moment.

OFFICERS' TRAINING SCHEMES.

Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to bring the business and commercial training scheme for officers, to which reference has been made in the Press, more directly before the heads of the firms from which he is seeking assistance?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am much obliged to my Noble Friend for putting this question; and I am no less obliged to the Press for the wide publicity they have already given to this scheme. It is a scheme under which business firms are invited to take ex-officer or man of similar educational qualifications for a period, not exceeding twelve months in order to get the run of the concern—the Government finding maintenance during that period. An honourable undertaking will be asked of the firms to guarantee a salaried post to the officer concerned, if he shapes well, for at least a second twelve months. I am glad to say that I have already received a number of offers from the heads of business firms to adopt this scheme. We propose to canvass the business firms of the country both; personally and by written communication; I take the opportunity to say that anybody interested will be supplied with full details of the scheme on application to the Controller, Appointments Department, St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton Street, Westminster, S.W., or by making local application for the same to the district, director of the locality.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the widest publicity is given to the results?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, and I am much obliged to the Noble Lord for helping that publicity by putting the question.

TRAINEE'S PREMIUM, ENNISKILLEN.

Mr. ARCHDALE: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour why Mr. J. Maguire, of Enniskillen, who, at the request of the
Ministry of Labour, agreed to train a man as motor-mechanic for 12 months from 22nd October, 1919, for a premium of £25, has not been paid the premium, though he has applied for it several times and the man's time is now up?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will investigate the case to which my hon. Friend refers and communicate the result to him.

ARMY CANTEENS.

Mr. GILBERT: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War if women are still employed in Army canteens; if so, can he state approximately the number of women so employed and the reasons for employing them; and will he consider whether this kind of work can be given to disabled ex-service men?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that the latest figures of employés of the Navy and Army Canteen Board are as follows: Women, 2,644; civilian men, 1,4–79; ex-service men, 1,815. The corresponding figures for 1st April were: Women, 3,118; civilian men, 1,978; ex-service men, 1,649. The policy of giving preference to ex-service men is being pursued by the Board, but in certain departments and as waitresses in the coffee bar trade the work is more suitable for women. I would like to add that the service of women in the work has markedly raised the standards of tone and comfort in the canteens.

SCHOOL TEACHERS.

Sir W. SEAGER: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether there are any ex-service men being trained as elementary school teachers; if so, how many; and whether he anticipates that the response from suitable ex-service men will be so satisfactory as to ensure the efficient staffing of the schools in the future?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): Grants under the Government scheme for the higher education of ex-service students have been made to 4,582 ex-officers and men to enable them to take courses of training for the teaching profession. I have every reason to hope that these men will make
efficient teachers, but I am, of course, not looking solely to this source of supply to staff the schools.

Sir W. SEAGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give publicity to these training colleges, so that others may be attracted to the colleges?

Mr. FISHER: Certainly.

COST OF LIVING (STATISTICS).

Mr. BRIANT: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the monthly cost of living statistics is still calculated on the basis of a working-class budget derived from figures supplied by some 2,000 urban working-class families during one week in 1904; and, if so, whether he is satisfied that this basis is an adequate one under present conditions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The statistics prepared by the Ministry of Labour are designed to show the increase in the cost of maintaining unchanged the pre-War standard of living of working-class families, and the changes in the prices of the various items included, as ascertained each month, must be combined in proportions corresponding with the relative importance of those items in pre-War working-class expenditure. For this purpose the application of the family budgets is generally valid, since the changes in the relative expenditure as between one staple article and another between 1904 and 1914 were slight, except as regards the increased consumption of margarine, for which allowance was made.

Mr. BRIANT: Is it not the fact that this estimate is based on the consumption of a pound of fresh butter per week and a dozen eggs, and, if that is so, does this really represent the actual consumption at present?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will send my hon. Friend two copies of the "Labour Gazette" to show how we arrive at this figure and the details which make it up. After he has read those if he cares to put another question I shall be pleased to reply.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not the case that since 1904 there has been no specific inquiry into working-class budgets?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not say that.

Colonel NEWMAN: That is my question.

Colonel NEWMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, with the exception of wheat, the price of which has to be maintained at an artificial price for reasons of State, the average price of the commodities of life is now at or below the figure of Armistice Day, 1918; and will wages and salaries that were advanced since that date on a sliding scale be now reduced correspondingly and the public who have brought prices down by a policy of doing without be allowed to benefit?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part therefore does not arise.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman read last week's "Economist"?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

NAVVIES' WAGES, LEAMINGTON.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Leamington Town Council is not paying the standard rate of wage to a number of navvies employed on its housing scheme; and whether he will suspend the payment of any subsidy to this council until it complies with the provisions of the Fair-Wages Clause?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I understand that these navvies are employed in breaking existing roads to connect with the existing main sewer the drains laid by the contractors for the housing scheme. I am informed that there is no standard rate of wages in the district for such men, but that they are being paid at the rate normally paid by the Council and other employers in the neighbourhood for similar labour.

BUSINESS PREMISES.

Mr. DONALD: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether, on the presentation of the Report from the Select Committee at present sitting to consider the question
of shops and business premises, it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with business premises?

Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend will realise that the Government will not be in a position to make any statement on this matter until the Committee have reported. But, in any event, I should add that, as explained in a reply which I made to a question on 24th June, the position of business premises is not one with which the Ministry of Health deals.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL RECORD CARDS).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 39.
asked the Minister of Health the cost involved in preparing, printing, and issuing to insurance committees the new medical record cards to be kept by insurance practitioners after 1st January, 1921; the estimated expenditure of insurance committees for writing the record cards and supplying the cards to the practitioners; and the estimated annual expenditure of carrying out the proposed procedure in the transmission of record cards in the cases of persons removing from one district to another?

Dr. ADDISON: The estimated initial outlay for England and Wales on the new permanent medical records is, under the first part of the question, £38,000, and under the second part, £19,000. With regard to the third part, it is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the yearly cost of transmision of the record cards, but it should fall considerably short of the annual expenditure on the old medical record cards and doctors' register cards, both of which will be replaced by the new permanent medical record card.

BOUNDARY EXTENSIONS (LEEDS AND BRADFORD).

Mr. FORREST: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether, before considering the applications of Leeds and Bradford to absorb towns and urban council areas, he will, in view of the great cost involved, withhold his authority for the holding of any inquiry until the promoters of these schemes have satisfied him that they have good grounds for their applications on the lines of the Birkenhead Committee
recommendation, namely, that they have taken a plebiscite of the areas to be absorbed and have secured a substantial majority in favour of their proposals, or that they are able to prove to the Ministry that there are good grounds of public policy for the absorption proposed; whether, with the object of avoiding an abortive inquiry, with its very great outlay of money, he will submit the statements made in pursuance of the above by the applicants to the representatives of these areas which it is proposed should be absorbed; and whether he will postpone all inquiries until he has considered both the statements made in support and the replies made in objection?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no authority to substitute the procedure suggested in the first part of the question for the procedure prescribed by Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and I am not aware that the Town Councils of Leeds and Bradford possess powers which would enable them to take a plebiscite in the areas which they seek to acquire. As regards the second and third parts of the question the instructions of the Ministry issued in July last require the promoters to send copies of their Memorial to the several local authorities affected and to inform these authorities that a full statement of any objections they may wish to raise should be sent to the Ministry and to the promoters within six weeks of the receipt of the Memorial. I may add that a conference with the authorities concerned has been fixed for Thursday the 18th instant.

Mr. LUNN: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the deputation will he hear arguments to show that there are special reasons why these inquiries should not take place, as otherwise the result of the deputations may be fruitless for these people who are fighting for their very existence?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no doubt when I meet the deputations I shall hear plenty of arguments.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OUTSTAND- ING LOAN DEBTS).

Mr. MYERS: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the outstanding debt of the local authorities of England
and Wales for the year ending 31st March, 1915, with the total sum paid upon interest charges thereon, with the corresponding figures for the last complete financial year in respect of which the returns are available?

Dr. ADDISON: At the end of the financial year 1914–15, the total of the gross outstanding loan debts of the local authorities in England and Wales was £570,770,000. The total amount of interest paid by them during that year in respect of their loan debt was £19,220,000. The corresponding totals for the year 1917–18 were £550,520,000 and £20,100,000.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order, Sir, may I not put Question No 43? I have only been called upon twice. I gave notice of a question for the 17th, which appears by mistake on the Paper to-day as No. 16, which you did not call. This, therefore, is only my third question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is the fourth standing on the Paper. If I once started making inquiries into the genesis of questions, and their character, history, and so forth, I am afraid I should get into endless inquiries. I must take the settled rule of the number standing on the Paper.

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) never imposed any restrictions upon the sale of intoxicating drink during the entire period of the War in West Suffolk, and that none exist to-day; whether he is aware that restrictions were imposed in the other half of the county, viz., East Suffolk, and that in East Suffolk those restrictions continue; and whether, now that the War has ceased for two years, he will remove this anomaly?

Mr. FISHER: I have been asked to reply to this question. One of the objects of the Bill which the Government hope to introduce immediately is to make it
possible to deal with anomalies such as that indicated in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: In view of the fact that it is two years since peace broke out, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, pending a settlement of the larger question, he could see his way at once to remove this local anomaly?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The lava has not cooled yet.

Mr. FISHER: I say we hope to remove this anomaly.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Am I to understand we must wait for the Bill before this local matter is dealt with?

Dr. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which part of the anomaly will be removed, whether the restriction or the other part?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why is the Government guilty of the impertinence of retaining these restrictions? We tolerated them in War time, but they are quite out of place in Peace time?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).

Sir B. FALLE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the responsible officials in Government Departments work far longer hours than the ordinary clerks, male and female, permanent or temporary; if he will suggest and, if necessary, enforce that for the next year, or even two, the 'hours of work in Government offices should be 54 per week, inclusive of 1½ hours per day for dinner and tea, and that such hours for work and for meals should be rigorously observed; and if he could in this way economise the salaries of many thousands of superfluous clerks, male and female, who are now costing an impoverished country more than they are earning?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): I am aware of the strain which falls upon the higher officials, in Government Departments. Every effort is being made to effect as rapidly as possible all feasible reductions in the staffs employed in
Government Departments, but I should not regard it as practicable to impose a Regulation of the kind indicated in the hon. Member's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG.

CHILDREN (TREATMENT).

Dr. MURRAY: 60.
asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is prepared to give an assurance to this House that children and girls are not being openly bought and sold in the Colony of Hong Kong?

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): Yes, Sir. I have described the nature of the actual transactions in the reply given to questions on this subject by the hon. Member for Poplar (South) (Sir A. Yeo) and the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) on the 4th November.

Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that the practice of slavery is increasing under this Government in many parts of the Empire?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WALTHAM ABBEY AND ENFIELD FACTORIES.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether discharges from the Royal Gunpowder' Factory at Waltham Abbey and the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield will be suspended during the existing state of unemployment; and whether similar concessions will be made to the employés at these factories as has been accorded to the employés at Woolwich?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: As regards Waltham, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply on Monday last to the hon. and gallant Member for Edmonton (Sir A Warren). No discharges have taken place at Enfield for some months, and none are in immediate contemplation.

GAS SHELLS.

Mr. MYERS: 69.
asked the Secretary of State- for War if his attention has been drawn to a report that a Renfrew firm
are in the course of executing an order for gas shells, the number involved stated to be 3,000,000; and, if so, will he state the destination of the shells referred to?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The War Office has no knowledge of this order.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be possible for orders of this kind to be given and executed without the War Office knowing anything about it?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Not by the War Office. It could not be at all, I understand.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Is there any Department of the Government capable of giving orders of this sort, and no Member of the Government being aware of it?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, that is not the case. It is a foreign Government's order.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

TRAINING.

Mr. GILBERT: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if it is now the practice of the Air Force to train their own men for pilots, mechanics, etc., from youths entering the service; at what age youths are accepted for this training; if any educational or other test is required; for how many years the training lasts; how many training camps exist for this purpose and where they are situated; and what is approximately the number of such men at present under training?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The answers to the remaining parts cannot be conveniently given orally, as they involve replies to over 40 different points. If the hon. Member is interested, he should communicate with the hon. Member for Chatham (Lieut. -Colonel Moore-Brabazon) who will be able to give him all the information he may require.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

NATIONAL WAGES BOARD.

Colonel NEWMAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister to what Government Department will be entrusted the setting-up of the pro-
posed National Wages Board in the coalmining industry; is it proposed to allow the householder to have any representation on a Board which will determine for him what price he shall pay for his coal; and, if so, will he consult those bodies who can claim to represent the ordinary householder?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. The terms of settlement of the miners' strike provided, amongst other things, that the Mining Association and the Miners' Fderation should proceed forthwith to prepare a scheme for submission to the Government at the earliest possible moment and not later than the 31st March for the regulation of wages in the industry. It is obviously impossible for me to anticipate the result of this conference. The adoption of any scheme that may be proposed will be subject to the sanction of the Government, through the Mines Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

MILNER MISSION.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister who authorised the publication on Saturday, 6th November, of the full text of the official memorandum giving the result of the conversations between the Milner Mission and the Elgyptian delegation; why this document was not first presented to Parliament as a Parliamentary Paper; whether the proposals contained in it have been considered by the Cabinet; and, if so, whether the proposals have received the unqualified acceptance of the British Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The document to which the hon. Member's question refers was published in Egypt some months ago with the consent of the Mission, who are solely responsible for it. It has not been presented to Parliament because it has never been officially communicated by the Mission to His Majesty's Government, though it will, I understand, be included in their forthcoming Report. The proposals contained in it have not yet been fully considered by the Cabinet, and consequently there is at present no question of their acceptance or otherwise by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that this document was handed on Friday afternoon last by an official of the Foreign Office to the assistant foreign editor of the "Times," and to no other newspaper in this country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that, but it is not in any sense an official document.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that a document of this importance, containing what are in effect proposals for a treaty with Egypt, should be published before it has been approved by the Cabinet?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That question does not arise. It happens that Lord Milner, who is Chairman of the Commission, is also a Member of the Cabinet, but, apart from that, this action is precisely the same as would have been taken if he had not been a Member of the Cabinet, and so far the Government have no responsibility at all.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: None what ever

Mr. BONAR LAW: None whatever.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask if it is denied that this document was given to a newspaper by an official of the Foreign Office? That is the allegation.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not deny or admit it, because I know nothing about it; but I do not see that there would be any harm had that been done.

SUDAN.

Mr. STEWART: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state what the position of the Sudan will be under the new arrangements with Egypt; whether the Sudan Government will be free from any interference from the Government of Egypt; and what arrangements, if any, have been made for securing to the Sudan a sufficient supply of water from the Nile and its tributaries for the future development of cotton-growing and other industries in the Sudan?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am not aware that any change is contemplated in the political status of the Sudan, which remains as defined in existing Conventions. The
geographical situation of the Sudan provides that country with a sufficient guarantee in respect of water supply, and any arrangements which may be made would be intended to secure the supply of Egypt.

Mr. STEWART: May we take it that the Egyptian Government will not be able to put any impediment in the way of the Sudan in this matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It arises from the geography of the country that the Sudan will always be able to look after its own water supply.

Mr. SUGDEN: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman will issue a report of the railway work and cotton planting which has boon proceeding in the Sudan in respect of loans granted and guaranteed by the Government

Mr. SPEAKER: That raises another matter.

FOREIGN EIGHTS.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all foreign Governments who have hitherto exorcised rights under the Capitulations in Egypt have been consulted with regard to the two alternative drafts contained in the published memorandum of agreement between the Milner Mission and the Egyptian Delegation in Section 4 (v); whether the contemplated transfer of these foreign rights to the British Government was implied or defined in any of the treaties of peace or in the recognition of the British Protectorate; and what steps are the British Government now taking to bring their new proposals regarding the new position of foreigners in Egypt to the attention of foreign Governments?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first and third parts of the question, negotiations have already been opened with all the Capitulary Powers for the transfer of their rights, under the Capitulations, to Great Britain. As regards the second part of the question, the recognition of the British Protectorate implies the recognition of the special position which Great Britain enjoys in Egypt, and which cannot be fully secured without the transfer to Great Britain of these foreign rights in the manner proposed in the negotiations now in progress.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do I understand that these negotiations have begun since the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, and did not begin before it since the recognition of the Protectorate?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that is so; but if my hon. Friend requires further assurance, perhaps he will put another question.

AGRICULTURE BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 54.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Report stage of the Agriculture Bill will be resumed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Our present intention is to resume on Monday next.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to bear in mind that the representatives of the Scottish agricultural interests have to travel backwards and forwards for this Bill, and that it is most inconvenient to them only to know at the last moment when it is coming on, as has happened in the past?

Mr. BONAR LAW: They will know now.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will it be taken day by day, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, until finished?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Our intention is to proceed with it right on till it is finished.

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. GILBERT: 55.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that at the present time there is no hon. Member in the House who can answer questions on behalf of the Charity Commissioners; and will he state to what Minister questions relating to charitable funds should be addressed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to announce this appointment at an early date.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, ALLOWANCE (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Mr. ADAMSON: 56.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government will
agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the present allowance made to Members of Parliament in relation to the personal and travelling expenses incurred by them in the course of their Parliamentary duties, and to make recommendations thereon?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. The Government are prepared to appoint a Select Committee to examine into this question.

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether the setting up of a Committee to consider the increasing of the salaries of Cabinet Ministers, and now the setting up of another Committee to consider the increasing of the salaries of Members of this House, forms part of the policy of economy of the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it would be better to consider first what the Committees say. I would like if I may—

Mr. MacVEAGH: The Committee know what they are to say.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Mr. BONAR LAW: The leading of the House would be a very simple process if that were true.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

WHEAT ACREAGE (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture the percentage of decline in the acreage of wheat in Scotland and Ireland for 1920 as compared with 1919; and can he give any explanation of the decline?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): According to the preliminary statements published by the Departments concerned, the decrease in the wheat acreage in 1920, as compared with 1919, was 31.4 per cent, in Scotland, and 28.7 per cent, in Ireland. In the case of the corresponding decrease (15.5 per cent.) in England and Wales, the growing of crops other than wheat has largely been due to the better price which could be obtained for them in the market. I am not in a position to speak for Scotland or Ireland, and would suggest that
my hon. Friend should obtain information from the Scottish and Irish Departments of Agriculture.

Major HOWARD: Is it not the fact that the decline is on account of restrictions imposed on wheat by the Food Control Office?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think my hon. and gallant Friend must address that to the Food Ministry.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is due in Scotland to the farmers pursuing ordinary economic farming operations?

ALBANIA (FRONTIER DELIMITATION).

Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNG: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of the permanent delimitation of a frontier between Greece and Albania is now under the consideration of any international authority, and, if so, which; and when a settlement may be expected?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; and the second part does not, therefore, arise. His Majesty's Government do not consider that the delimitation of the frontiers of Albania can usefully be considered internationally until some definite progress has been made in the solution of the general Adriatic question.

MONTENEGRO.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the repeated assurances given by His Majesty's Government that the Montenegrin people should have an opportunity of freely deciding their own political future, whether he can give any information as to what steps are being taken to afford such an opportunity at an early date; and whether, in view of the fact that Montenegro is still recognised by all the Allied Powers as an independent sovereign state, the method by which the decision of the Montenegrin people is to be ascertained will secure that there shall be no interference, civil or military, by any other state with the free expression of the national desire of Montenegro?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The elections for the Constituent Assembly are to be held in Montenegro during the present month, and His Majesty's Government are taking steps to secure that they are placed in possession of independent and reliable evidence as to the conduct of these elections. The future attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question will depend upon the result of the elections, and on whether they are satisfied that those results duly represent the wishes of the majority of the Montenegrin people.

Mr. McNEILL: In view of the fact that some representatives of the Government in the recent past have been strong partisans of Serbia, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to give this House the information?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot assent to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I will endeavour to satisfy him as to the second part.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Had not we better put our own house in order before interfering with Montenegro and Serbia?

Mr. McNEILL: 77.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say why His Majesty's Government has refused to appoint a successor to Sir George Grahame as diplomatic representative of Great Britain in relation to Montenegrin affairs; whether this refusal marks any change in the policy of the Government towards Montenegro; whether the King of Montenegro is still recognised as a friendly sovereign and head of an independent State in alliance with Great Britain; and if he will say through what channels, since the departure of Sir George Grahame from Paris, His Majesty's Government conducts its relations with the Government of Montenegro and receives official information regarding affairs in that country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first part of the question, Mis Majesty's Government have not felt justified in appointing a diplomatic representative to a Court and Government who are not resident in their country and whose representative character has been called in doubt. The reply to the second part is in the negative. As regards the third part, His Majesty's Government must adopt a
non-committal attitude pending the results of the Montenegrin elections. As regards the last part of the question, the Secretary of State is consantly receiving direct communications from the Ministers of King Nicholas, whose information, however, owing to their absence from the country, is necessarily second-hand.

Mr. McNEILL: As the hon. Gentleman says that His Majesty's Government cannot have diplomatic relations with a Government in exile, may I ask whether that was not done the whole time that the King and the Government of Belgium were exiled in France; and, under those circumstances, is this not a mere pretext?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think the two cases are in the least analogous.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Was not a man sent, and why were we not informed of the result?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have explained many times.

CIVIL SERVANTS' BONUS.

Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: 82.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the additional bonus in accordance with the sliding scale based on the cost of living awarded to civil servants has been calculated on their net pay after deduction for pension and not on their gross pay, which has been the practice since January, 1918; and if he will state the reason for this change, which apparently effects a small economy by reducing the benefits to those of the lower grades while having no effect on those of the higher grades, who do not have deductions made from their pay on account of their pensions?

Mr. BALDWIN: The bonus of civil servants is calculated upon their ordinary rate of remuneration, with the exception that in the case of pensionable civil assistants employed in the Ordnance Survey, it has in the past been calculated on the rate of remuneration of unpensionable ranks, which is somewhat higher than that of corresponding pensionable ranks. It has been decided that this practice is not justifiable and that, as from the 1st November, bonus should be calculated, in this as in other cases, on the actual remuneration received.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the result of this decision on the part of the Treasury is to inflict hardship on the lower paid men, who receive less bonus under this increased bonus scheme, while those who are higher salaried men, and who pay nothing towards pension, get full bonus? Is he aware that the result of this decision is to throw the burden entirely on the poorer men?

Mr. BALDWIN: According to my information, the only result is that these men are put on exactly the same basis as everybody else in the Civil Service, and that, owing to some error when the bonus was first given, they have been obtaining more bonus in proportion than any other branch of the service.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: But will the right hon. Gentleman really reconsider this matter, if he takes into view that these men who were given this pay had it fixed once and for all, with a deduction for pension; and is he aware that the result is to alter the decision originally given by the Treasury, and throw an extra burden on the poorer men and not on the better paid men?

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to consider the matter in the light of my answer, and afterwards, if he has any cause of complaint, to mention it to me.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: May I show the right hon. Gentleman the figures on which I base my argument?

Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be delighted.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (BLOOMS- BURY ESTATE).

Sir W. DAVISON: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether Lord Haldane, when a Member of His Majesty's Government, or anyone on his behalf, entered into any agreement with the Duke of Bedford in or about the year 1911 or 1912 to purchase any portion of the site at the rear of the British Museum, now offered by the present Government to the University of London; what was the area of the land then proposed to be purchased; and what was the price to be paid for the same?

Mr. FISHER: I do not think it is reasonable that a Minister should be questioned as to the action taken by a Member of a previous Government. So far, however, as I am aware, no such agreement as is suggested was entered into by the Government of which Lord Haldane was then a member, nor by any person acting on behalf of that Government, and I can in any case assure the hon. Member that the action of the present Government was in no way determined by anything which took place in 1911 or 1912.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we really to understand that the Minister of Education, who is advising the Government on this matter, has no information as to the previous negotiation on which the present offer is based; and will he be good enough to answer the last two parts of my question as to the area of the land then proposed to be purchased, and what was the price to be paid for the same?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the pledge given by the Leader of the House that no question will be answered for the gratification of idle curiosity?

Sir W. DAVISON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to press for an answer; and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider that it is not idle curiosity to ask for information on a matter for which this House will have to find the money—nearly half a million.

Mr. FISHER: I have given an answer to what I was asked and all the information I have.

Mr. MacVEAGH: So have I.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Haldane, in making the previous offer, said he was acting with the consent of the Prime Minister?

Mr. FISHER: I am not aware of that.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has already said he knows nothing about it.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Colonel NEWMAN: 89.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether co-operative societies are liable for Excess Profits Duty, in common with other industrial
concerns; and, if not, whether he will take steps to remedy the omission with, effect retrospectively?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Co-operative societies have always been within the scope of the charge to Excess Profits Duty. Special provisions relating to the computation of liability of these concerns are contained in Rule 10 of Part I. of the 4th Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and in Section 26 (8) of the Finance Act, 1917.

EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).

Captain FOXCROFT: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Education the highest total figures spent in taxes and rates, respectively, upon compulsory education in England and Wales prior to the passing of the Act of 1918; and the approximate cost of taxes and rates, respectively, to be spent when the Act of 1918 is in full operation?

Mr. FISHER: I am not clear what the hon. and gallant Member means by compulsory education, but to assume that he refers to elementary education. The expenditure of Local Education Authorities upon this service reached the highest mark attained prior to the passing of the Act of 1918 in the financial year 1917–18. In that year their total net expenditure was £30,323,757, which was met as to £15,399,149 (or 51 per cent.) from grants by the Board, and as to £l4,924,,608 (or 49 per cent.) from rates. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the answer which I gave on 28th October to the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

DISTURBANCE, LOUGHREA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a letter from the Most Reverend Dr. O'Doherty, Bishop of Clonfert, in which he states that on the 27th October a lorry load of police passed through Loughrea firing shots; that they returned in the evening and, after drinking at a public house, broke several windows and fired shots down the street, wounding a child of an ex-service man
and two small children, the sons of members of the local constabulary; what steps he proposes to take; and whether his representatives in Ireland will invite the Most Reverend Bishop to give evidence?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I have received the letter to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and I have also received a full police report of the incident in question. It appears that a party of police passing through Loughrea in two motor lorries noticed a republican flag flying from a telegraph pole. One of the constables climbed the pole, but failed to detach the flag, and the party thereupon fired several shots at the flagstaff and brought down the flag.

Mr. MacVEAGH: A great British victory!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: While so engaged it is stated that shots from revolvers were fired at them by civilians in the town. Two children were very slightly injured by flying splinters of stone or mortar, and their wounds are described by the doctor who attended them as mere scratches. The windows of two shops are stated to have been broken in the firing, but in view of the fact that the police were being attacked I see no ground for attributing this damage to reckless or unjustifiable shooting on their part.

Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask for an answer to the last part of my question, as to whether the representatives of the right hon. Gentleman will invite the Bishop of Clonfert to give evidence and prove whether he is a liar or not?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I should welcome the help of all the most reverend gentlemen I can get in Ireland in this or in any other matter.

Mr. DEVLIN: Docs the right hon. Gentleman think it is a profitable transaction to attack children, to indiscriminately fire in a peaceful town for the mere luxury of shooting down a flag?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot admit that children were in any way attacked. I profoundly regret that these innocent children were in any way touched, but I
am very glad, to say, from the report of the doctor who attended them, they were not wounded, but received mere scratches from splinters of mortar.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Does he think it desirable in the interests of peace and order to allow a number of policemen to engage in a transaction of this kind, pulling down a flag, the result of which might have been the loss of innocent lives, and the creation of the spirit which has been created on this occasion?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have the police in Ireland nothing better to do than to go about pulling down flags, republican or any other?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does not the conflict of evidence between the military officer and the Bishop of Clonfert point to the urgent necessity for an independent investigation?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Most Reverend the Bishop of Clonfert was not present. He was in his palace, and only heard the shots.

Mr. DEVLIN: Are we to understand the right hon. Gentleman was present? Is not the evidence of a Catholic Bishop of just as much or more importance as the evidence of the malefactors who carried on this disgraceful transaction?

TRALEE.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the following description in the "Daily News" of this morning of the Hate of things in Tralee:
It is like a town with the plague. Not a shop is open and people remain behind closed doors and shuttered windows from morning to nightfall. An hour before darkness sets in women and children leave their homes and go anywhere they can for the night.
About 280 women and children sleep in the workhouse every night. The men who remain in the town are in constant dread during the long hours of the night. When morning dawns efforts are made to secure food some way or other, but the slightest sound on the streets, even in broad daylight, has the effect of making people run indoors again.
I will omit a passage, because I think it is only a repetition of a previous statement, and I come to this:
It was the police who gave permission to the bakers and butchers to give supplies, and it was by police orders that all other business is shut down.
This morning the police gave permission to two local bacon factories to work for the day in saving meat which otherwise would have gone bad. It was the acting county inspector who gave a written order to the Tralee gas manager to continue gas and water supplies.
It is, therefore, plain to everybody that police rule is the only rule in Tralee which must be obeyed, and the police themselves so proclaim openly.
Whether he still persists in the statement that this holding up of Tralee was not done by the direct orders of the police; and what steps he proposes to take to put an end at once to this action by the police authorities.
I endeavoured to give the Chief Secretary as early notice as I could of this question, so I sent him two letters, one giving the general effect of the question I desired to ask, and the second giving details. I hope I have given the right hon. Gentleman sufficient time to prepare an answer.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have seen the hon. Member's general letter saying that he was going to raise this question of the article in the "Daily News," and I draw his attention to the fact that the beginning of the article is:
Strangely contradictory reports are now arriving from Tralee.
I have read the article in question, and I have nothing to add or to alter in the reply which I gave to the House yesterday.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman persist in the statement that the holding up of business in Tralee was not directed and carried out by the police?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I made an answer to that statement yesterday.

Mr. O'CONNOR: We shall have an opportunity of testing the accuracy of that statement.

INCENDIARISM, GRANARD.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has yet been able to discover the authors of the incendiary fires in Granard by which many houses were destroyed; whether these incendiary
fires in the case of the houses of Sinn Feiners were started by the Sinn Feiners themselves, and in the case of the houses of Unionists by Unionists themselves; if not by either of these two classes, by whom were they started?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As I stated yesterday, the police have been unable to discover the persons responsible for these fires, but they are pursuing their inquiries, and meantime I cannot express any opinion as to the classes to which the persons in question belong.

ARMISTICE DAY, ATHLONE.

Mr. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is true that the following notice was posted on shop fronts and walls in Athlone:

NOTICE.

Shopkeepers of Athlone are hereby ordered to close their premises on Armistice Day, 11th November, in honour of the fallen heroes of the Great War and the police murdered in Ireland.
This Notice applies to all business houses and factories.
Any failure to comply with this order renders the destruction of the said premises inevitable.
(Signed) BLACK AND TANS. God Save the King.
And whether he will take immediate action to protect the town from threats of destruction by those officers of law and order?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been informed by telegraph that the police found one such notice posted up and immediately pulled it down. It is not known by whom it was posted, but I do not believe that it was put up by the police, nor do I believe that any harm will befall any person by reason of his opening his shop to-morrow in Athlone.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is there anything that you would believe?

ALLEGED FLOGGINGS.

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the renewal of floggings of young men in Tuam district, County Galway, during the week-end; whether John Brennan, of Kilgerrin, Tuam, was taken out of his house at three o'clock in the morning
and led away across a bog by armed men; whether he was then made to strip on the road, was flogged with a stick, and told to run home without clothes; when he had gone a few yards shots were fired after him; whether on Saturday night a young man named McDonnell, in the house of Mr. Canavan, Town Clerk of Tuam, was taken to the kitchen, made to take off his clothes and flogged with leather straps and buckles; and what action he proposes to take in these matters?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I only received this question at 12.50 to-day. I have called for a report as to the allegations of flogging to which my hon. Friend refers, but owing to the short notice which I received of this question I am not yet in a position to reply.

Mr. DEVLIN: The sooner we stop flogging in Ireland the better. I propose to raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I beg to give notice that I shall renew my question with regard to the origin of the incendiary fires in Granard until I have dragged out the truth.

Mr. DEVLIN: You will never drag the truth out of the right hon. Gentleman.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (EMERGENCY ARRANGEMENTS).

Mr. TYSON WILSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether the emergency arrangements for the payment of Out-of-Work Donation and Unemployment Benefit, announced by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour on 21st October, are still in operation; and, if so, how long it is proposed to continue them?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Although the coal strike is now at an end, some little time must elapse before the volume of unemployment caused thereby is reduced sufficiently to enable the normal procedure with regard to payment of Out-of-Work Donation and Unemployment Benefit to be resumed. Accordingly, the emergency arrangements will continue until Saturday, November 20th; thereafter the ordinary procedure will be in force.

Mr. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to whether there is any arrangement being made for the probationary period before the Act comes into operation in respect of receipt of benefits for those out of employment?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is another question. We are here dealing with the emergency arrangements for the coal strike period. What my hon. Friend is referring to is the fact that under the new Insurance Act people cannot draw benefit till they have paid four contributions. That is another question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: Can the Leader of the House inform us what business will be taken on Friday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We had intended to take the Agriculture Bill on Friday, but, as the stage at which we are now is one of the most important in connection with the Bill, I am informed that it would be very inconvenient to have it taken on that day. In these circumstances, it will not be taken, and the House will not be asked to sit on Friday.

Mr. DEVLIN: What is the business for to-morrow?

Mr. BONAR LAW: On the assumption that the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill will be finished to-night, we shall take the Third Reading of that Bill to-morrow.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether tomorrow, being a day of great national solemnity in England, the Government will not persist with this most disreputable proposal and farce?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree with the hon. Member as to the solemnity of the day, but I cannot imagine any subject that is more suitable to take than a measure which is a real attempt to bring about peace in Ireland.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Why run this comedy at the same time? It is not a real attempt.

Mr. DEVLIN: It is a farce.

Dr. MURRAY: Would it not be better that we should not meet to-morrow and meet on Friday instead?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the solemnity of to-morrow will not be in the least enhanced by neglecting the business of the House.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Have the police authorities made arrangement for securing that Members will be able to get to the House to-morrow?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt that has been considered by the authorities at Scotland Yard.

Mr. DEVLIN: You will get on very well without them.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I ask in all seriousness whether to-morrow, which is associated with the conclusion of a terrible war and the hope of peace amongst nations, had better not be selected for the discussion of a measure which I regret to say is regarded not as a message of peace, but a message of war in Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Nothing could be more serious than the endeavour to deal with Ireland. Our Bill is our best effort in that direction, and I cannot think a better day could be found for it.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

JOHN COLIN CAMPBELL, DAVIDSON, Esquire, C.B., for County of Hertford (Hemel Hempstead Division).

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).

Sir PARK GOFF reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee, had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIR MEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Macmaster to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Bill); Sir William Pearce
(in respect of the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill); Sir William Watson Rutherford to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill); Mr. Turton to act as Chairman of Standing Committee E (in respect of the Juvenile Courts (Metropolis) Bill (Lords]); and Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Married Women's Property (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

As amended, in Committee and on Recommittal, further considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution of Council of Ireland.)

4.0 P.M.

(2) The Council of Ireland shall in the first instance consist of u person appointed by His Majesty, who shall be President, twenty persons, of whom not less than tenshall be members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland chosen by the House in such manner as that House may determine, and twenty persons, of w[...]om not less than ten shall be members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland chosen by that House in such manner as that House may determine, and the appointment of members of the Council of Ireland shall be the first business of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and of Northern Ireland.

A member of the Council appointed by the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall, on ceasing to be a member of that House, cease to be a member of the Council:

Provided that on the dissolution of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland the persons who are members of the Council appointed by the House of Commons of that Parliament shall continue to hold office as members of the Council until the date of the first meeting of the new Parliament.

The first meeting of the Council shall be held at such time and place as may be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.

The Council may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and the quorum of the Council shall be fifteen; subject as aforesaid the Council may regulate their own procedure including the delegation of powers to committees.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS (Minister without Portfolio): I beg to move, at the beginning of Subsection (2), to insert the words "Subject as hereinafter provided."
The Amendments which I have to move to this Clause are purely drafting Amendments, intended to meet points raised in Committee, and this and the following ones should practically be read as one Amendment.
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2) leave out the words "in the first instance."
After the word "Ireland" ["Northern Ireland shall, on ceasing to be a member"] insert the words "if on his appointment he was a member of either House of Commons."
After the word "Parliament" ["first meeting of the new Parliament"] insert the words "and shall then retire unless re-appointed."
After the words last added, insert the words "The President of the Council shall preside at each meeting of the Council at which he is present, and shall be entitled to vote in case of an equality of votes, but not otherwise."—[Sir L. Worthington Evans.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Establishment of second Houses of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.)

(1) It shall be the duty of the Council of Ireland, at or as soon as may be after their first meeting, to frame a scheme for the establishment of second Houses of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.

(3) A scheme framed under this Section shall be submitted forthwith to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland for their consideration, and if the scheme is confirmed by identical Acts of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland it shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be repealed or altered by identical Acts of those Parliaments.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
and to submit the scheme to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland for their consideration. If the scheme submitted to the said Houses in pursuance of the foregoing provisions is not confirmed in manner hereafter provided the Council may at any time thereafter, if it appears to them that they can usefully so do, frame a further scheme for the purpose aforesaid, and submit the same to the said Houses, and so from time to time as occasion arises.
This, and other Amendments I shall have to propose to this Clause, are designed to meet points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dun-cairn (Sir E. Carson) the other day in Committee. It was thought that, as the
Clause was originally drafted, the Council would be entitled to submit a scheme once, and if that did not prove acceptable to the House it could not present another scheme. This Amendment is intended to make it clear that if they think there is a reasonable likelihood of its being accepted they can submit another scheme. I think with the other Amendments I am submitting we are meeting the difficulties pointed out by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I am not quite certain what the understanding was between the right hon. Member for Dun-cairn and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I understand that as the Clause is now framed the scheme for the Second Chambers must be identical, both for the North and the South. I would suggest that under the terms of this Amendment it will not be open to the Council to frame different schemes for North and South.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think that point arises here. An identical Act might be passed, but with different schedules for the North and the South. The schemes might be quite different, but they would be in schedules to an identical Act, and I imagine that is the form which the legislation will take. There is nothing in the Clause which requires each Second Chamber to be identical with the other. The only point is that the scheme, whatever it is, has to be passed by an identical Act, that is all.

Mr. McNEILL: If my right hon. Friend can give me an assurance, endorsed by the Law Officers of the Crown, that that will be the result I am quite satisfied, but I should have thought that the Clause as now proposed would not have the elasticity which he suggests it possesses.

Colonel NEWMAN: Assuming it is found impossible to form a House of Commons for Southern Ireland, will the Committee composed of Members of the Privy Council, or their nominees, who apparently will form a temporary nominated House of Commons, have power to submit these schemes and act in every way on identical terms with the North of Ireland Parliament?

Mr. THOMAS BROWN: Providing the scheme for the South is quite different from that for the North, and that that
is intended to be possible, would it not meet the case to let the paragraph read "the scheme or schemes"?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have consulted the Attorney-General for Ireland and he confirms what I have said that there may be a different scheme under these provisions for the North and the South, and the only things which have to be identical are the Acts to be put into operation. There is another point which we are willing to consider, and if necessary we will insert words in another place to meet it. The duty is cast on the Council to frame schemes. It may be argued that if any such scheme is not accepted the Parliaments will be in some way handicapped and will be unable to go on as single Chamber Parliaments. We believe the words as they stand in the Bill are sufficient to cover that. If, however, we find they are not sufficient, other words will have to be introduced in another place for the purpose of making it quite clear. If the Parliament of Southern Ireland is nominated it will have the same power as the elected Parliament would have. It will appoint twenty persons to the Council of Ireland, and the Council of Ireland will be constituted and will function exactly as if the Parliament for the South of Ireland was an elected Parliament.

Brigadier - General COCKERILL: I would like to ask if the Council which is to have the power to prepare schemes may do so by means of a few selected persons, so that the task will not necessarily have to be undertaken by the whole of the members of the Council. It seems to me it might be possible to arrive far more easily at some scheme if you did not have the full Council of forty members sitting to frame it. Would it not be possible for the full Council to delegate the work to one or two members? I imagine there is nothing in the Clause which would prevent that, and I suggest it would be a step on the road to unity. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to insert words which will make it clear that that may be done? There is one other point I want to put to him, and that is whether it would not be possible here or in another place to enlarge the scope of this Clause? My right hon. Friend the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), in the speech which he made on Monday—a speech which seemed to me to be full of
hope for the possibility of a settlement of Ireland—looked apparently to the Council as an ultimate means of securing union. I would like to ask whether it would not be possible to give the Council power by means of indentical Acts to frame schemes rather more extended than the present one. It might, for example, be given power to frame a scheme for the establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland. The Clause following this deals with the question of the establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland, and reference to it will show that there is power for the two Parliaments by identical Acts to establish a Parliament for the whole of Ireland. But there is no power given to any outside body to bring the two Parliaments together for the purpose, and it seems to me it might be of very great value if this Council, which is intended to be a great unifying factor under this Bill, had power to initiate some scheme which might lead to unity. I know the origin of this Clause. I know the Clause was intended to meet a pledge given by the Government on Monday, and on that occasion I found myself in some difficulty, because I was not quite clear that the words then uttered really met the case. I voted against it, therefore, but I certainly did not do so in any hostility to the Clause, and I think that if some words could be devised to give the Council power to initiate a scheme of that sort, it might greatly increase its value. If I may add one more suggestion, it is that the Council might have power to frame an Amendment to this Act itself by a Resolution of both Parliaments.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause relates only to the establishment of second Houses.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I bow to your decision, Sir. If my right hon. Friend can meet me in the direction I have indicated, in another place, I shall be grateful to him.

Sir J. BUTCHER: There is very great doubt whether, under the Clause as it stands, there is any power for the Council to prepare separate schemes. The words in the Clause and in the Amendment to the Clause are "frame a scheme," and then it goes on "and to submit the
scheme." Throughout the whole of the Clause the reference is to one scheme, and to one scheme only. Before the Bill goes to another place the Government should really consider whether the words do not want more consideration.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If my right hon. Friend will look at the terms of his own Amendment he will find that he has got into this curious position: that if he submits a scheme to both Houses, and one House accepts it and the other does not, he has to go on submitting the alternative or second scheme to both Houses over again, although the first one has accepted the original scheme. My right hon. Friend shakes his head. I do not profess to be as great a connoisseur in the English language as he is, but the Amendment says:
If the scheme submitted to the said Houses in pursuance of the foregoing provision is not confirmed in manner hereinafter provided 
—that means confirmed by both Houses—
the Council may at any time thereafter, if it appears to them that they can usefully so do, frame a further scheme for the purpose aforesaid and submit the same to the said Houses, and so from time to time as occasion arises.
House No. I having approved absolutely of his original scheme, he then tries to formulate a scheme to please House No. 2, and he has to go on submitting that scheme to both Houses. Surely that is not intended by the Bill? It emphasises the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. E. McNeill) that the words of this Amendment want more consideration.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have already said that we will deal with that point. With regard to the question which my hon. and gallant Friend (Brigadier-General Cockerill) has raised, I would point out that the Council have power to regulate their own procedure, including the delegation of powers to Committees. He will find that in the Clause we have just passed, Clause 2. There is no difficulty at all about the Council going into these matters.

Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this Clause, also consider the question of whether it would not be desirable to give to the Council the power of considering a scheme for one Parliament alone? The Council
might come to the conclusion that a Second Chamber for Northern Ireland, or, on the other hand, a Second Chamber for Southern Ireland, without giving a Second Chamber to the other Parliament, was desirable. Under the Clause that cannot be done. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?

Sir L. W0RTHINGT0N- EVANS: Yes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before we pass from this Clause, may I make a protest from this side against this Amendment? There are a number of hon. Members who are against Second Chambers of any sort or description. We consider this Amendment is directly contrary to modern democratic opinion in all democratic countries, including this one, and I think that somebody on these Benches—although most of my hon. Friends will abstain, I am sorry to say (I think quite wrongly), from participation in this Bill—ought to make a protest against the Government going contrary to the opinion of a very large body of people in this country who are in favour of single Chamber government only.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I really think my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) need not worry himself unduly about this Clause. I am rather surprised that he has spoken as hr has, because I know that, unlike the majority of this House, he has attended the Home Rule Bill discussions. Those of us who sit on this side of the House think this Clause can never possibly have any effect. The only conceivable way in which this Clause can have any operation at all is under the now Amendment to-day, giving the President a casting vote. As the President is going to be chosen from outside, and will be the forty-first Member, he may conceivably sometimes be able to give a casting vote between the equally balanced Sinn Fein and Orange parties on the Council. The Clause is entirely inoperative, and it is rather hard, after the discussion which took place the other day, to expect the Government to go on praising their ill-favoured off-spring.

Colonel NEWMAN: May I ask if this Clause is really going to be inoperative—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak.
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3) leave out the words "be submitted forthwith to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland for their consideration, and if the scheme," and insert instead thereof the words "not have effect unless and until it"
Leave out the word "it" ["it shall have effect"] and insert instead thereof the words "and if and when so confirmed."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Power to establish a Parliament for the whole of Ireland.)

(1) The Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland may, by identical Acts (hereinafter referred to as constituent Acts), establish in lieu of the Council of Ireland a Parliament for the whole of Ireland consisting of His Majesty and one or two Houses (which shall be called and known as the Parliament of Ireland), and may determine the number of members thereof and the manner in which the members are to be appointed or elected, and the constituencies for which the several elective members are to be returned, and the number of members to be returned by the several constituencies, and the method of appointment or election, and in the event of provision being made for two Houses of Parliament, the relations of the two Houses to one another; and the date at which the Parliament of Ireland is established is hereinafter referred to as the date of Irish union:

Provided that the Bill for a constituent Act shall not be introduced except upon a resolution passed at a previous meeting of the House in which the Bill is to be introduced.

(2) On the date of Irish union the Council of Ireland shall cense to exist and there shall be transferred to the Parliament and Government of Ireland all powers then exerciseable by the Council of Ireland, and also the matters which under this Act cease to be reserved matters at the date of Irish union, and any other powers for the joint exercise of which by the Parliaments or Governments of Southern and Northern Ireland provision has been made under this Act.

Captain CRAIG: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Acts" ["by identical Acts"], to insert the words "agreed to by an absolute majority of members of each Parliament at the Third Reading."
On the Committee stage of the Bill, certain undertakings were given by the Government to which I should like to call their attention. The First Lord of the Admiralty said with regard to this particular Amendment:
Since we have put these precautions in there are to be added two Chambers, one for the North, and one for the South, and therefore the procedure now will be a Resolution passed by four Chambers, that is the Senate, and Lower House in the North, and the Senate and Lower House in the South, and then identical Acts of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend that these powers need further examination, and we readily accede to his request that they shall be re-examined, and I shall be very glad on behalf of the Government to hear from anybody who is interested in this matter. We will reconsider it before the Report stage, and if we think additional powers are required, we will place them on the Paper.
I would like to point out that when that speech was made by the right hon. Gentleman he was anticipating the establishment of an Upper Chamber in both Parliaments, which of course would have been an additional safeguard against an Act being passed, say, by the Northern Parliament handing itself over to the Southern Parliament. That would have been in that case an additional safeguard, but as we know now it is doubtful at least whether these Upper Chambers will come into being or not. Therefore, so far as that goes, we lose that safeguard. I submit that our claims to have this Amendment inserted is therefore considerably strengthened. There was quite a long Debate on this point, and I think the Committee agreed with us that a matter of such importance as the sweeping away of the Northern Parliament, and its inclusion in the Southern Parliament, was one which ought not to be left to a mere snap Division in the Northern House of Parliament. Some further safeguard, either in the nature of a referendum, or that which is suggested by this Amendment, namely an absolute majority of members of each Parliament at the Third Reading, should be inserted.
Our case is stronger to-day than it was then, because, as I have pointed out, there will be, at first at any rate, no Second Chamber to safeguard our interests in the matter. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept this Amendment, which is a most moderate one, and which is the least far-reaching of the various
Amendments suggested to carry out the object which I have in view. I beg to move.

Major O'NEILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
As a result of the promises given by the Government, I think we had some right to expect that a Government Amendment to this effect would appear on the Paper. Shortly stated, the objects of this Amendment, with regard to both Parliaments, are these—a desire to get rid in the future, if possible, of the question of union or non-union being the main political issue of the time. If you do not have words to this effect, the question whether the North is to unite with the South will come up again and again at every election for the Northern Parliament, and very probably also at every election for the Southern Parliament. In the North you may get members elected on other issues. Labour questions will play a prominent part, and indeed, as has been said, there may quite possibly be a Labour Government in the North of Ireland before very long. It will, however, be a Labour Government which, at any rate in the immediate future, will not be prepared to place itself under the subjection of a Parliament in Dublin. Consequently, unless there is some provision of this kind, that there shall be an absolute majority before union is brought about, labour questions, and various social questions connected with the welfare of the people, both in Northern and Southern Ireland, will all go by the board time after time, because the great question as to whether there is to be union or not will always be raised. If people feel that they are safeguarded, and that there cannot be union unless it is passed at the Third Reading by an absolute majority—that is to say, a majority of the total membership of the House—then the Parliaments will be able to carry on with the ordinary work of social reform and other legislation for the benefit of the community.
There is a precedent for this, I think, in nearly all the subordinate legislatures in the Colonies. In most cases in which large constitutional questions such as this have to be decided, it is provided that the mere snap vote of a bare majority shall not be sufficient to carry it. I think that some Colonies have schemes for a referendum, others have schemes of this kind, and others, again, have safeguards
of a different nature; but in every case, in a great constitutional issue, there is some safeguard other than the bare vote of a number of people who may be attending a particular meeting of the House of Commons at a particular time. I appeal to the Government to consider this matter very seriously, and, if possible, to accept the Amendment

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend did not say that the Government gave an undertaking to deal with this matter, and I want to clear that up. My right hon. Friend did say that the powers needed further examination, and that he would look into them before the Report stage, but what my hon. Friends are trying to do is to protect either Parliament against being joined by a snap vote to the other Parliament—that is to say, to protect themselves from union without their real, considered consent. I was hoping that we had already met that. We put into the Bill a proviso to Sub-section (1) of Clause 4, providing that the Bill for a constituent Act shall not be introduced except upon a Resolution passed at a previous meeting of the House in which the Bill is to be introduced.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: That was in the original Bill.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes. This question was not overlooked by the Cabinet Committee which considered the draft Bill, and they inserted this proviso for the very purpose of protecting either Parliament from a snap vote. A Resolution has to be brought in, after notice, and no Bill can be passed unless it is founded on that Resolution and is introduced at a different sitting of the House from the sitting at which the Resolution is passed. No constituent Act of this sort to bring about union could possibly be passed unless it had been twice before the two separate Parliaments. My hon. Friends suggest that an absolute majority of the Members shall agree to the Bill. An absolute majority of this House would be, I think, 352 Members. It varies, of course, in the Southern and Northern Parliaments, but my hon. Friends' proposal would mean that the Bill would have to be passed by an absolute majority, not of those Members who might be present, but an absolute majority of all the Members of the House, whether they were present or not. I do not think that that
is necessary. I quite agree that it would be highly undesirable that there should be a snap vote, and that union should be brought about without real consent, because union brought about by means of a snap vote would be no union at all. I entirely agree that union must be founded on consent. I thought, however, that we had met the position sufficiently by ensuring that it shall be considered, not merely on one occasion, but on two occasions. Beyond that I do not want to tie the hands of the two Parliaments. If they like to provide for themselves any regulations or rules, they will be at liberty to do so, but, so far as this Parliament is concerned, we want to give them the usual full Parliamentary rights. I must say that I do not think the Amendment is necessary for the purpose for which it is designed. I think there is already sufficient security in the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not press it.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I was rather surprised that my right hon. Friend referred to that proviso and said that he was quite of opinion that it was sufficient. That proviso was in the original Bill, and it was in the original Bill, as he himself has said, at the time when the First Lord of the Admiralty used the expression to which attention has been called, namely, that he agreed that those powers needed further examination. I understand, now, that my right hon. Friend brings forward that proviso as some satisfaction of that admission—in other words, as though it were a further examination and an attempt to meet the case. My right hon. Friend spoke as if it were something quite unheard of that you should require an absolute majority in a matter of this sort, and that he had only to call attention to the way in which it would work. As he was looking at the report, however, he must have seen that the hon. Member for Woodvale (Mr. Lynn), in moving the same Amendment in Committee, pointed out that in the Australian Constitution Act of 1900 there are these words:
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament "…—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1920; col. 1500, Vol. 129.]
That is exactly the proposal which we are making here, and surely there can be nothing unreasonable in our asking at this juncture for a provision which, after
the most mature consideration, was accepted in this great Act constituting the Australian Commonwealth. I really cannot see that we are asking for anything unreasonable, and I do not think, if I may say so, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, that he has really carried out the spirit of the promise given by the First Lord of the Admiralty in Committee on the 19th May. May I remind the House that on that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member or Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) went into the constitutional question at some length, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, in referring to him, said:
We quite recognise that he speaks, not alone as the representative and leader of a party in Ireland, but also as a great lawyer whose views on a question of this kind must carry a great deal of weight, quite apart from any consideration of the particular measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1920; col. 1503, Vol. 129.]
It was after making that statement that he went on to promise further consideration. That being the case, I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will not put us off with this proviso, which has been in the Bill from the first, and which, as we have shown both in Committee and this afternoon, is in our view quite insufficient for a purpose which my right hon. Friend himself acknowledges to be a very legitimate one. It is quite clear that, if such a very important matter as the amalgamation of these two Parliaments is to take place, it ought to be in accordance with the considered opinion, and with the deliberate consent, not merely of a certain small number of members gathered together, it may be, for quite different objects, but of the constituencies of these two Parliaments. That cannot possibly be the case unless very stringent precautions are taken against anything in the nature of what we generally call a snap vote.

Dr. MURRAY: One of the few satisfactory features of this Bill, so far as I can see, is that at some time there may be union in Ireland. This Amendment, so far as I have been able to understand it both in Committee and to-day, is designed to make union between the two Parliaments as difficult as possible. I think it is not unfair to say that, when we remember that we have been told that the union of the two Parliaments would be a disaster to Ireland. The Amendment will defeat what I consider to be the only
spiritual object of the Bill, and the only one that justifies it. As a constitutionalist—and it is only on these Benches that you get the real constitutionalists, the real Conservatives—I think it would be a pity to depart from constitutional practice in connection with this Bill. There is no provision of this sort in connection with this Parliament, and I think it would be more necessary in this Parliament than in any Parliament in Ireland. As I pointed out in Committee, at Irish elections, when any question or no question is at issue, they bring up every man, dead or alive, to vote in the election; and I am quite sure that there will be the same diligence and the same efficiency when a question involving a party consideration of this sort is brought before one of these Parliaments, either in Dublin or in Belfast, and especially in Belfast. Therefore I do not see that it is worth while to introduce a new feature of constitutional practice into the Parliaments which you are proposing to set up, in order to obviate a contingency that never, at any rate in Ireland, will arise. I think the proviso which is already in the Bill, to the effect that a Resolution must be adopted by the House of Commons before a Bill for union is brought before either Parliament, is, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, quite a sufficient safeguard and sufficient notice to those vigilant politicians, both in the North and in the South of Ireland, to ensure that, when a question of this sort arises, it will be decided by a majority of the House. On these grounds I am inclined to adopt my usual practice and support the Government.

Sir E. CARSON: I am bound to confess that the Amendment does not at all go the length of meeting the objections which I made in Committee, and I think my right hon. Friend has not really grasped what those objections are. The point really is this. If you are going to bring about the union of the Southern and the Northern Parliaments you ought to bring it about with the consent of the people who are within the jurisdiction of both those Parliaments and in any great constitutional change, such as the abolition of a Parliament or the amalgamation of a Parliament, you ought to take care that the majority which brings that about is really representative, ad hoc, that is on that question, of the particular jurisdiction
which they purport to represent. The point I put to the First Lord of the Admiralty in the Committee stage, which I thought at the time he agreed to, was this. If these Parliaments are to work at all as business Parliaments—and in the North they will have a great deal of pure business and labour matters to deal with—you ought not always to have hanging over them at every election the question as to whether they would agree to the amalgamation of the North and South. In other words, you ought not to have the test question always at every election, "Will you agree to an amalgamation of our Parliament with the other Parliament?" If you do, you will never get over the old political differences which are dividing the people in the North and the South at present, and my belief—I can speak more for the North than for the South—is that when they come to work the Parliament in these industrial districts the elections will turn probably on Labour questions, probably on a Labour Government—and I am not at all sure that if there is to be a Labour Government it may not be the first Labour Government there will be in this United Kingdom, because they have a great preponderance of the voting power, and it may be that you will elect the Parliament entirely on Labour questions. Would it not be most unfair that a Parliament elected upon that kind of question should have the power of saying, "We will agree, although this was not the question at the election at all, to the fusion of the North of Ireland Parliament with the South of Ireland. It seems to me to be disastrous to lay down any such matter as that.
The apprehension which I put to the First Lord of the Admiralty in Committee was that he had not made provision to bring about the certainty that the change made in the constitution of the North and South by fusion would really represent the considered opinion of the electorate by which they were returned. That is the real issue. This Amendment very slightly meets that. It says that there must be an absolute majority of the members elected. That only goes a small way to meet my point. I do not believe there is any constitution in the Colonies which would allow the abolition of a Parliament, or the abolition of one of the Houses of Parliament, by a bare majority of those who happened to be present at
the discussion. I do not believe such a thing exists. You certainly could not do it in America; I am sure you cannot do it in the Australian Constitution, and I do not know any Constitution under which you can do it. But here what you are laying down is that a Parliament re turned on entirely different questions may proceed to abolish the Constitution under which it was returned and set up a new Constitution. That is no protection to democracy. It is no protection to the electors who elected the Parliament, and nay right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) was so impressed with this that he promised to have the matter considered. I cannot see that it has been considered at all. It is there still, exactly the same problem with exactly the same wording that was in the Bill when it was brought in, and I am certainly greatly disappointed that the Government has not attempted to meet the point in any way. So far as I am concerned, not only will I support the Amendment, which only goes a small way to take away some of the dangers and difficulties of not carrying out the will of the people, but if my right hon. Friend will not meet us on this I shall oppose the whole Clause as not being a proper Clause to set up in a Bill of this kind without the ordinary constitutional safeguards which you find in every Constitution that I know of in the world. I cannot understand why the Government persists in this attitude, because my right hon. Friend himself would agree that to have what I might call a snap vote, by a Parliament returned for an entirely different purpose, to subvert and get rid of a Parliament is about the tallest proposition I have ever heard of in constitutional law. Therefore we shall be obliged to divide the House upon this Amendment, and furthermore to divide against this Clause as being an utterly unusual one in a Bill of this kind.

Major HAYWARD: I find considerable encouragement in the fact that this Amendment is moved and pressed by hon. Members who represent Ulster constituencies. The fact of it is that those hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies are very apprehensive lest in some way an Irish Parliament shall first of all introduce and then pass the First Reading, Second Heading, and Third Reading of a Bill for amalgamation with the Southern Parliament. I quite agree that they take up a proper position and say, if this thing
is to be done it has to be done, of course, with the full consent of the people of both the North and the South, but I find encouragement in the fact that those hon. Members are very apprehensive that the strength of feeling in the North would be such that they think they would be so enthusiastic in support of amalgamation or so apathetic that they will allow the whole thing to be passed and to be carried through unless this extraordinary protection is provided. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) last week was of a very encouraging character. It was a most optimistic speech. The encouragement I find from it, and from the Amendment, is that underneath all the terrible conditions that we find at present, the real underlying feeling between the people of the North and of the South is not as bad as some of us probably believe, and that is really some encouragement for the future.

Mr. A. SHAW: I was very much surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) because I thought he laid down a test which, applied to this Parliament, would land us in a somewhat peculiar position. I wonder how it would work out in practice in this House of Commons. He coupled the idea of a mandate with the idea in the Amendment, that unless there is an absolute majority of the Southern and Northern Parliaments nothing in the direction of amalgamation would be done. The right hon. Gentleman says this question of the union of the Parliaments of Ireland is a vastly important constitutional question. I would remind him that the question raised for this Parliament by this Bill is a vastly important constitutional question. On both these points, if he accepts the practice of the British Constitution, he is ruled out of court. In the first place, what particular mandate, in his rigorous sense, is there for a Bill like this, and if we come down to the Amendment which my hon. Friend seeks to insert in this important alteration of the Constitution, what mandate for the British people is there for this Amendment, which is to be put into the Bill, the effect of the Amendment being to block the road to Irish union? Then, with regard to the absolute majority of members of both Houses, surely, if the right hon. Gentleman and his followers in
Ulster—I understand his apprehensions are confined to the Ulster Parliament—are alive to the signs of the times and to what is going on, they will manage to scrape together a sufficient number of men in the Northern Parliament to show, at any rate, what the representatives of Ulster opinion think. Supposing you were to apply the rule which the right hon. Gentleman suggests in this Parliament, that an absolute majority of Members of the House of Commons to be present when any great change is proposed. What would have happened in this House last night? The Second Reading of a Bill involving very important changes was voted, and I should be very much surprised if, on counting up the Division list, there was present in the Government Lobby anything like an absolute majority of the Members of the House of Commons. I believe, in fact, an absolute majority of the party which the right hon. Gentleman represents was found, not in the Government Lobby, but in the Opposition Lobby. I really do not think, when we are dealing with a matter so important to the aspirations of the Irish people, that we should go out of our way to rake up impossible things which cannot happen if adequate notice is given beforehand, and as a further factor to make Irish opinion certain that this Bill is meant to be unworkable and absolutely ridiculous, to put further barriers in the way of a union which seems to me to be almost impossible as the Bill stands now. I very much hope the Government will stick to their guns.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I quite agree that the speech to which we have just listened goes to the root of this whole question, and I think my hon. and learned Friend is entitled to the gratitude of the House for the clear issue which he has raised. As I understand the issue it is this. Are we going to put the Irish Parliament under this Bill in the same sovereign and constituent position as the Parliament of the United Kingdom? If we are, I entirely agree that the Amendments which have been moved are entirely out of place, but I have not so understood the intentions of the Bill as expounded by its authors. If, on the other hand, we intend to retain in this Imperial Parliament the sovereign and constituent authority, then the Amendment is entirely consistent with the whole meaning and the genius of the Bill, and
that is the point which hon. Members have really got to decide in reference to this Amendment.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MOLES: When we come to discuss Irish questions I have always thought that there was some advantage in being an Irishman and in knowing the facts with which you are dealing. The speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Shaw) hardly suggests that. He is surprised at the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson). Why? Because he preaches the strictest constitutional doctrine. The hon. Member has not challenged a single tenet in the constitutional law laid down by my right hon. Friend. He takes the point that it is not in accordance with the British Constitution. That is child-playing with the question. He knows that the British Constitution is in the main unwritten, but you are writing now a constitution for the Irish Parliament, which makes all the difference in the world. The hon. Member asks what mandate we have for this Amendment. It is trifling with the question to put forward an argument of that kind. He might as well ask, Is there any mandate for the Ten Commandments? Do not let us get into theology, because I imagine the hon. Member is just as well informed upon that question as upon this. Surely the sense of justice that lies behind this proposal is the real mandate for it. You would be running against the public conscience in Ireland if you took any other course. What is the question we are discussing? A proposal may come before one of these Parliaments to extinguish that Parliament, to destroy the right of the electors in relation to it, and it is seriously suggested that it is running counter to constitutional law to urge that the electors should have some right to govern the action of the Parliament in respect to this matter, and that the Parliament should not extinguish itself unless there is an absolute majority for such action and reflective of popular opinion. My hon. Friend opposite (Dr. Murray), who is always most interesting, but least useful when he is most amusing, says that the remedy for a proposal to destroy the Ulster Parliament or the Southern Parliament is to vote the quick and the dead, and nothing can go wrong. That is Scotch logic.
If you proceed with a proposal of the kind which has been made by the Government, and if hereafter a position arises such as we have contemplated by means of a snatch vote, you put your Parliament into conflict with the electorate, and raise one of the greatest constitutional issues that could be raised before any Parliament. If we who will have to live, in the event of this Bill becoming an Act, in the midst of the conditions that will arise, seek to safeguard ourselves against a crisis of that kind, is it an unreasonable proposal? Surely the House will not say that it is unreasonable. I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He knows perfectly well, for he was present when the discussion took place, that the First Lord of the Admiralty found himself coerced by the facts of logic and by argument to subscribe to the view put forward by the right hon. Member for Duncairn. He was so coerced that he promised to consider the point and to meet it, and my right hon. Friend is too much of a Constitutionalist to believe that the point has been met by the suggestion now put forward. He takes refuge in saying that our case is met in the original provisions of the Bill. The First Lord of the Admiralty took the view that our case was not met by the provisions of the Bill, and it was upon that ground that he promised an Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to see one or other of these new Parliaments up against a set of facts that would be disastrous he ought to meet us, and it is not asking too much to say that there ought to be an absolute majority in any Parliament before assenting to a tremendous constitutional change that would involve the very existence of Parliament.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Government does not attach any great importance to this Amendment one way or the other and I took care in speaking not to say that the Government were going to refuse it. I said I hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. I still hope hon. Members will not Dress it. I thoroughly appreciate their reasonable desire that every precaution should be taken against anything like a snap vote on so important a matter as union. Not only do I appreciate their fear, but I also realise that any union obtained by a snap vote would not be worth the paper it is written on. It is absolutely essential that
the Union should be by consent—real consent, represented by ordered procedure and deliberate decision. In that respect I refer to the proviso, namely, that a resolution has first to be passed, in order to show that there can be no such thing as a snap division. There is procedure by resolution, then procedure by Second Reading, by Committee and by Third Reading. It is almost impossible to imagine a Parliament so constituted that with all these four stages to go through there could be any snap vote. On the other hand, it is highly important that the sentiments of both sides should be taken into account, and if my hon. Friends from Ulster tell me that the fear and sentiment of Ulster and the fear of their constituents is that by reason of a snap division they may be forced into union without their consent, it would be absurd on the part of the Government not to try to meet a well-grounded fear, however unreasonable or however unlikely it was to be realised by facts. On the other hand, I am confronted with a different point of view. One hon. Member has already given voice to it. It will be said, or it may be said, that the Government are accepting an Amendment—

Dr. MURRAY: A snap Amendment. It is not on the Paper.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is an Amendment which has been moved. It may be said that by accepting an Amendment which calls for an absolute majority on Third Reading, we are putting up a barrier against Union, and that the Bill, instead of trying to bring about union, is seeking to prevent union. I have the two sentiments to consider. A union which was not brought about by an absolute majority would not be a real union and would not work. The question is; by which sentiment am I to be influenced? If my hon. Friends press this Amendment, I shall not vote against it, but I will accept it. I do, however, ask them to consider that there is another side, and that we do not want it to be said that there is anything in this Bill which puts up a barrier against union.
Question "That those words be there inserted in the Bill" put, and agreed to.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "also" ["also the matters"] and to insert instead thereof the words
(except so far as the constituent Acts otherwise provide.)
This is an Amendment brought in because of what took place in Committee with regard to reserved services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dun-cairn pointed out that if the Post Office Savings Banks, Trustees Savings Bank, and postal services were necessarily obliged to come over on the union, it might form a barrier to union. Therefore, this Amendment was put down, which enables constituent Acts bringing about the union, to provide for these services not coming over if the constituent parties so desire.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Legislative powers of Irish Parliaments.)

(1) (12) Coinage; legal tender; negotiable instruments; or any change in the standard of weights and measured; or

Mr. REID: I beg to move, in Sub section (1, 12), after the word "instruments" ["negotiable instruments"], to insert the words "including bank notes and power to issue the same."
This Amendment is similar to an Amendment which I moved in Committee, I understood then that it would be accepted, but the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that he thought it would be move suitable on this Clause. It seems to me that it might be possible to pass legislation which would interfere with the present power of banks in connection with bank notes, and as in Ireland bank notes form such a large part of the currency, any interference might be disastrous. Anything done in connection with this Clause is done once and for all. If any question arises in connection with this Clause it is a constitutional question. Even if it is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that it is superfluous to put in these words, I think we ought to make the matter quite clear, because in these circumstances it is better to be perspicuous than obscure.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): If the hon. Member will limit the Amendment to the words "including bank notes," we are prepared to accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1, 12), after the word "instruments,"
insert the words "including bank notes."—[Mr. Reid.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Reserved matters.)

(1) The Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the management and control of those forces and the administration of the Acts relating thereto, including appointments, remuneration and removal of magistrates thereunder, shall be reserved matters until such date, not being earlier than the expiration of three years after the appointed day, as His Majesty in Council may determine, and on the date so determined the public services in connection with the administration of those Acts and the management and control of those forces shall by virtue of this Act be transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Southern Ireland as respects Southern Ireland and to the Government of Northern Ireland as respects Northern Ireland, and shall then cease to be reserved services and become Irish services:

Provided that if the date of Irish union occurs before the said services are so transferred then, unless otherwise provided by the constituent Acts, those services shall as soon as may be after the date of Irish union be transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Ireland.

(2) For the purpose of the management and control of those forces whilst the services in connection therewith remain reserved services, there shall be constituted a body consisting of two persons appointed by a Secretary of State, the head of the appropriate Department of the Government of Southern Ireland or some person appointed by him, the head of the appropriate Department of the Government of Northern Ireland or some person appointed by him, and a person appointed by His Majesty, and that body shall have such powers in relation to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland as His Majesty in Council may by Order determine.
(3) The following matters, namely,—

(a) the postal service;
(b) the Post Office Savings Dank and Trustee Savings Banks;
(c) designs for stamps, whether for postal or revenue purposes;
(d) the Public Record Office of Ireland; shall be reserved matters until the date of Irish union, and on that date the public services in connection with the administration of those matters, except so far as they are matters with respect to which the Parliament of Ireland have not power to make laws, shall, by virtue of this Act, be transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Ireland, and shall then cease to be reserved services and become Irish services:

Provided that if before the date of Irish union the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland by identical Acts make provision for the transfer of any of
the said services to the Council of Ireland or otherwise for the exercise of the powers relating thereto by the Parliaments and Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland jointly, such services shall be transferred in accordance with those Acts, and shall on such transfer cease to be reserved services.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "earlier" ["not being earlier than "] and to insert instead thereof the word "later."
We are proposing to reinstate the Subsection in its original form, namely, that the two police forces are to be reserved to such date, not being later than the expiration of three years from the appointed day, as His Majesty might determine. We are proposing to leave out the provision which was inserted in Committee, namely, the setting up of a Committee for the purpose of administering and managing the police force while reserved. By leaving that out the police force will remain under the control of the Lord Lieutenant advised by His Majesty's Ministers of the United Kingdom. The Amendment was moved in Committee because it was thought that it was too soon to hand over the police to the two Parliaments, and therefore the word "later" was struck out and the word "earlier" was inserted, and it was provided that they should not be handed over for at least three years. One of the reasons was that the Southern Parliament would not think fit to take charge of the police force. Another reason was that it was suggested that the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police should be disbanded. The Government have considered both these points, and now that the Suspensory Clause is in, which provides that the Southern Parliament shall operate in any event either by an elected or by a nominated Parliament, there seems no reason why the police force should not be put at the disposal of the two Parliaments at the earliest practicable date. It ought to be quite possible to do it well within the period of three years. On the question of disbanding the police force the Government are of opinion that that would be an unjustifiable course as the charges of pensions, etc., would be put upon the two Governments. The Government now propose that the police should be passed over not later than the expiration of three years, and meanwhile should come under the Lord Lieutenant advised
by His Majesty's Ministers of the United Kingdom Parliament. The terms of retirement are already in the Bill. They are extremely liberal. They are known to members of the police force, who were informed some months ago, and so far as I know were satisfied with them, and if any other course were taken it would mean that the position would be altered from that which the members of the force think would apply to them.

Sir E. CARSON: I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend has gone back upon the decision come to in Committee after considerable argument. I am not sure that it makes very much difference in the actual state of affairs in Ireland, because I doubt very much whether the police can be handed over to the Southern Parliament in anything like the near future. Three years would be in itself, I think, a very hopeful limit to put in. But I am far more disappointed at the decision that the Government has come to as regards handing over these police at all. In the present condition of Ireland, I cannot imagine anything more difficult to carry out than dividing up the police, and saying to North Ireland and South Ireland, "You must have these police, whether you like them or not." Fancy saying to the South of Ireland Parliament, supposing it functions—it is quite possible that a Sinn Fein party may come in and take over the government—"You are to take over the police who are trying to prevent the shooting of everybody at the present moment under Sinn Fein orders." I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous. This force has always been an Imperial force directed by this House, and never paid out of local funds. The proper course is to say that we abandon the idea of keeping an Imperial force in Ireland, and we are going to disband the force, and are going to take care that the police, having done their duty, as these police have, probably beyond any police force in the world, are properly treated and properly pensioned. What would happen then would be that the North of Ireland Parliament and the South of Ireland Parliament would have to fight, if they liked, to select any of these police who were willing to rejoin under the local Parliament. I believe that the Government have adopted an entirely unsatisfactory way of dealing with the police and the Parliaments themselves. The
police would be handed over to something that was never contemplated when they joined the force. Anything more un satisfactory I cannot imagine.

Mr. STEWART: We should have a much clearer statement than we have had as to why this change is being made. As far as I recollect, the word "later" was changed into "earlier" on an Amendment which I brought forward in the Committee stage and which was accepted by the First Lord of the Admiralty. On the particular Amendment now brought forward one is entitled to utter a word of protest that at this stage of the Bill 34 Government Amendments appeared on the Paper for the first time to-day. This does not give Members time to consider them. It seems to me that the only way to deal with the police is, if they are disbanded at once when the two Parliaments function, they should have the option of either going under the Parliament or else leaving the Service with a pension. Some definite and urgent reasons should be given for this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: Leave out Sub-section (2).—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

Captain CRAIG: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "namely," to insert the words
(a) The appointment of judges of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland, the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, and the High Court of Appeal for Ireland.
This Amendment must be taken in conjunction with an Amendment which I have further on to leave out Clause 46, which Clause enacts that all matters relating to the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland and the High Court of Appeal for Ireland should be reserved matters until the date of Irish Union. I have no doubt that that Clause was inserted in the Bill with the object of securing impartial administration of law in Ireland, and no one can deny that in some parts of Ireland some such provision is necessary. The proper administration of law in Ireland would be amply secured by doing what I propose to do to, adding to the reserved matters the appointment of these judges and, if the Attorney-General thinks fit, adding to my Amendment the tenure of office of these judges, their payment and dis-
missal. I object to Clause 46 because it is so vague, and though I have been informed that we have nothing to fear from it, I submit that it is in such vague terms as to be dangerous from our point of view, as it is impossible to say what may not be held to come within its purview. The Government by it are laying up for us a store of trouble which would be avoided by this Amendment. In the Committee stage I submitted to the Government a number of matters as to which I thought it doubtful whether they would come within the scope of the Clause or not, and I have not been persuaded that some of these matters might not be held to be within the Clause. We in the North of Ireland desire to bring our legal system up to date, and we might find ourselves seriously handicapped by that Clause. I submit that by this Amendment and the further Amendment which I suggest, adding if necessary to judges the officers of the Court, all the objects in view would be attained.

Mr. MOLES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HENRY: This Amendment necessarily involves the consequential Amendment referred to, dealing with Clause 46. Clause 46 reserves the appointment and removal of judges of the High Court, the provisions as to remuneration, as to their officers, and as to retirement. If Clause 46 were repealed, substituting therefor the Amendments referred to, it would leave the High Court absolutely at the mercy of either of the Parliaments. On a former occasion when my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Craig) instanced some cases in which he thought that the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or the Parliament of Southern Ireland might be prejudicially affected by the retention of Clause 46, on examination every one of those cases was found to be fully within their powers. May I call attention to the provisions that exist in Clause 40 with reference to the rules of Court. Clause 40 says, in effect, that the Parliament of Northern Ireland, coupled with the Parliament of Southern Ireland, can take the existing rules of procedure and alter or annul them. That will have the effect which my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to produce, but the omission of Clause 46 is an Amendment we could not accept.

Sir E. CARSON: I would agree with the Attorney-General for Ireland if I were
certain that the question raised by the Amendment, that is the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland and the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland and the High Court of Appeal, were included in the words "all matters relating to the Supreme Court." I am certain I could make a very good argument on either side. That is the thing we ought to avoid in an Act of Parliament. Certainly one of the things we do not want to start with is having cases stated day after day to the Privy Council, who, I understand, are to decide constitutional points arising under the Bill. If it is certain they are included, why not say so? I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that the way of meeting the matter, instead of passing this Amendment and excluding Clause 46, which I entirely agree cannot be excluded, is to say, "All matters relating to the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland, and Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, including registration, and the High Court of Appeal for Ireland, including the appointment of judges of the said Courts." With those words inserted it would be perfectly clear.

Mr. HENRY: The suggestion is very good as far as it goes. But suppose we stopped at appointment. It might lead to great difficulty. I will consider with the help of the draughtsman what words are necessary, but it will be necessary to go further than mere appointment. I will introduce appropriate words in another place.

Captain CRAIG: I beg to ask leave to-withdraw the Amendment. I hope my right hon. Friend will not forget to insert the word "rules."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), after the word "union" ["data of Irish union and"] insert the words "and thereafter if the constituent Acts so provide."
After the word "date" ["and on that date the public services"] insert the words "if there should be no provision, to the contrary in the constituent Acts, or at such later date (if any) as may be prescribed by those Acts, as the case may be."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

Mr. HENRY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words
and (b) nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent the Parliament or Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland establishing a Public Record Office of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, for the reception and preservation of public records appertaining to Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland which otherwise would be deposited in the Public Record Office of Ireland, and if any such office is so established provision may be made by the Lord Lieutenant for the removal to that office of such probates, letters of administration, or other testamentary records granted or coming into existence not earlier than twenty years prior to the appointed day as, in his opinion, properly belong to the part of Ireland in which the office is situated and can conveniently be removed to that office.
This is to carry out an undertaking given during the Committee stage of the Bill. The effect is to enable the Parliament of Northern Ireland to have a Public Record Office for the purpose of containing the permanent records of the Court of Justice and also for taking any probates granted in respect of testators who die in Ulster and whose property was situated in Ulster. Those probates are kept in the ordinary way for 20 years after the probates are granted, and they are then automatically transferred to the Public Record Office in Dublin. We propose to give powers for the setting up in Belfast of a Public Record Office, of a kind exactly similar to that in Dublin, so that the various probates and other documents relating to Ulster and the six counties under the Northern Parliament may be transferred there from time to time.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Powers of Irish Council.)

(6) It shall be lawful for either Parliament at any time by Act to revoke the delegation or transfer to the Council of Ireland of any powers which are in pursuance of such identical Acts as aforesaid for the time being delegated to the Council, and thereupon the powers in question shall cease to be exerciseable by the Council of Ireland and shall become exerciseable in the parts of Ireland within their respective jurisdictions by the Parliaments and Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the Council shall take such steps as may be necessary to carry out the transfer, including adjustments of any funds in their hands or at their disposal:

Amendment made: In Sub-section (6) leave out the words "or transfer."— [Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Royal Assent to Bills.)

The Lord Lieutenant shall give and withhold the assent of His Majesty to Bills passed by the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, and to orders of the Council of Ireland, subject to the following limitations: —

(1) He shall comply with any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of any such Bill or order; and
(2) He shall, if so directed by His Majesty, reserve any such Bill or order for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, and a Bill so reserved shall not have any force unless and until within one year from the day on which it was presented to the Lord Lieutenant for His Majesty's assent, the Lord Lieutenant makes known that it has received His Majesty's assent.

Amendment made: In paragraph (2), after the word "Bill" ["pleasure, and a Bill so reserved"], insert the words "or order."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.

CLAUSE 14.—(Constitution of the Parliaments.)

(5) After three years from the day of the first meeting of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, that Parliament may alter the qualification and registration of the electors, the law relating to elections and the questioning of elections, the constituencies, and the distribution of the members among the constituencies, provided that in any new distribution the number of the members shall not be altered, and due regard shall be had to the population of the constituencies other than University constituencies.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "three" and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
This is a proposal to insert six years instead of three years as the date before which the proportional representation system cannot be altered. I will remind the House of what happened in Committee. The original Bill contains the words "three years." In Committee it was pointed out that the proportional representation system of voting had been inserted in order to give some security to minorities, and it might be that after the first Parliament had assembled that Parliament would change the system of voting and thus destroy the safeguards. It was proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut. -Colonel Guinness) that ten years should
be inserted instead of three. That proposal was not accepted by the Government, but my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill promised to consider the matter. In accordance with that promise I propose now to insert six years instead of three. I wish to be quite frank. The object of this is to prevent proportional representation being altered Until at least after two elections.

Sir E. CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where that comes in, because the Clause covers a great many other matters?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It covers all questions relating to various electoral affairs, but the plain object of extending the time is in order that the system of proportional representation should not be destroyed until after two elections. This is a matter which I do not feel at all strongly about. I do not want on the one hand to limit the powers of the Parliaments on electoral matters. I feel that once you set up subordinate Parliaments in either Southern or Northern Ireland they ought to be allowed to make the ordinary rules and regulations, for practically that is what they are, relating to elections. I do not want unnecessarily to restrain them. On the other hand, there are some who think that proportional representation will really give security to a minority, and I do not want to take away from any minority any security that proportional representation would give to it. Therefore, I put the Amendment on the Paper to extend the terms of three years, which would enable the Parliament to alter this system immediately to six years, which would practically mean that two elections would have to take place under proportional representation. I frankly say I shall take the view of the House upon the question, and if the House, think three years ought to remain, or if they prefer six, I shall be guided by their wish.

Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman has been extremely frank and fair in his explanation. Ulster feels very strongly on this point. Rightly or wrongly, we were under the impression that three years was the period during which we were to be precluded from altering the law with reference to proportional representation. We were
naturally very much startled when we got our papers to find the proposal to substitute six for three. I feel that we have so many friends in the House on this matter of detestation of this system of proportional representation that if it is left to a free vote we shall retain three and not six. This proportional representation system was forced upon Ireland against the wishes of every representative of Ireland, I think, with the exception of two, and originally it ought never to have been passed. First of all, it was against the wishes of all the Irish representatives here, and, in the second place, we Irish strongly object to have all these wretched experiments fn legislation perpetrated on us If you think so highly of proportional representation you should begin by imposing it on yourselves. We do not want to be treated as a sort of corpse on which to operate in all these directions. We object to this thing very strongly. We submit also that our activities are unduly interfered with if you extend the time to six years. Therefore, I trust we may have the support of the House in opposing this Amendment.

Sir E. CARSON: I take a rather broader view than that of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Craig). It is quite true that my colleagues and myself were offended at this system against the wish of all Irish Members of both parties, being imposed on Ireland at all, while at the same time you repudiate it for England and Scotland. But there is a good deal more in the Sub-section than the question of proportional representation. For six years these Parliaments are not to be allowed to do certain things in connection with elections, and I submit to the House, if they are to have any powers at all, they ought to have those particular powers. For instance, for six years instead of three they are not to be able to alter the qualification and registration of electors. Thus the North of Ireland, which is a very democratic and progressive place, is not to be allowed to alter the qualification. Why should it not have the power? Then there is the law relating to elections, and everybody knows that requires in Ireland a great deal of alteration. You have also the question of the constituencies and the distribution of Members amongst the constituencies. If the Parliament finds that particular places, having regard to the
growth and extension of industrial communities, are not properly represented, why should they not be allowed to alter those constituencies. A term of three years gives them time to look about and see how the Bill is really being worked, and I certainly fail to find any argument for a term of six years. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to persist in the Amendment which evidently he does not think is very important.

Lieut. - Commander WILLIAMS: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to keep the word "three" instead of six. I have no particular feeling on the subject of proportional representation. It. is a mild form of amusement which people with nothing better to do indulge in from time to time if they are not particularly strong in their minds. Beyond that I think it is a very harmless form of pleasure, and it does not affect me one way or the other. I support this Bill because I believe it is a genuine attempt to entrust the two Irish peoples with their separate destinies. If that is to be done, the sooner they take the responsibility of organising their elections and matters dealing with elections the better it will be. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES: I should also like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to leave it at three instead of six, for the reason that the insertion of six will condemn these Irish Parliaments to the system of proportional representation for six years. They are sincerely to be commiserated with on having to put up with it for even three years. Unless there is anything in the principle of the Bill which calls for doubling this penal period, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will drop the Amendment. We have had this question often discussed here, and many of us worked extremely hard to defeat the endeavour, which, like all endeavours of cranks, or those who are determined to reform everything out of its original shape, and to turn everything inside out and upside down, was pressed upon the House again and again with the most persistent malevolence, to pass this system. This House thoroughly detested anything so contrary to the spirit our elections and Constitution, and why is Ireland forced to have it? I do think this system ought not to be pressed upon the Irish
Parliaments for a longer period than three years.

Mr. SEDDON: I support the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Amendment. I cannot for the life of me understand when a Bill has gone through Committee with either a figure or an agreement why he should come down and want to substitute another figure. Nobody wants it and why put it to the trouble of a Division.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member (Mr. Seddon) hardly did me justice. I explained to the House the origin of this Amendment. In Committee a discussion took place and an undertaking was given and I put this down in pursuance of that undertaking. I made it perfectly plain that I would take the view of the House upon it. I do not propose to withdraw it, and I propose to ask the House to vote upon it.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 17.—(Privileges, qualifications, etc., of Members of the Parliaments.)

(6) His Majesty may by Order in Council declare that the holders of the offices in the executive of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland named in the Order shall not be disqualified for being Members of the House of Commons or Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively by reason of holding office under the Crown, and except as otherwise provided by Act of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, the Order shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act, but on acceptance of any such office the seat of any such person in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall not be vacated.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (6) leave out the word "but" ["but on acceptance "] and insert instead thereof the word "and."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.

CLAUSE 18.—(Representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.)

(c) On the appointed day, the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall vacate their seats, and writs shall, as soon as conveniently may be, be issued for the purpose of holding an election of Members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the constituencies, other than university constituencies, mentioned in Parts I. and II. of the Second Schedule to this Act.

Amendment made: In paragraph (c) leave out the words "other than university constituencies."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert a new Sub-section—
(2) If the Parliament of the United Kingdom is dissolved within one year after the first election of members to serve in that Parliament for the constituencies mentioned in Parts I and II of the Second Schedule to this Act, then, unless the said Parliament has previously been dissolved in that year, the members serving for those constituencies at the date of the dissolution shall, without any new election, become Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom summoned next after the dissolution in like manner as if they had been returned by those constituencies at the general election of Members to serve in that Parliament.
6.0 P.M.
This Amendment is for this purpose. As soon as the Bill comes into operation the Members from Ireland in this House will have to seek re-election, as their constituencies are altered by this Bill. It might be that this House itself was dissolved within a few months after such re-election had taken place. This Subsection provides that if a Dissolution of this House takes place within a year after the re-election of the Irish Members, that re-election shall stand for the new Parliament, and that they shall not be put to the needless expense of a second election, perhaps within a very few months.

Lieut-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I do not very much mind whether this Sub-section is inserted or not, but, as an English Member, I should like to point out the very curious position that is going to arise in this House. Irish Members will be elected to the Irish Parliament, and if shortly afterwards a General Election takes place for this House, those Irish Members will not have to seek re-election. That means that the Irish representatives who will be sitting in this House will not have been elected to it. Could anything be more ridiculous? As I say, I do not mind whether this is put in or not, because the whole Bill seems to me to be filled with ridiculous details from beginning to end, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make his Bill more ridiculous by putting this in, let him have it by all means.

Major O'NEILL: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is making a larger matter
of this than it really is. As I understand the Amendment, it simply applies to the first elections which will take place of Members of this Parliament after this Act becomes law. Supposing the first elections in Ireland to this House take place next May, and a General Election in June; it is, I should have thought, only common sense that those Members returned to this House in May should not have to re-submit themselves to the electors in the following month. I would go further, and suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might have added a further provision. Supposing a General Election takes place for this House between the passing of this Bill and the appointed day; that is to say, before the first election of Members in Ireland to this House; as the Bill now stands hon. Members who are going to stand for this House will have to go back to the constituencies, which will be wiped out within two months, to get re-elected to those constituencies. Then, when their first election under the Bill comes, their old constituencies are wiped out, and they will have in that case to resubmit themselves to their old constituencies and again to new constituencies within possibly two months. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might carry his Sub-section further, and provide that if a General Election takes place before the appointed day, and after the passing of this Act, that General Election in Ireland shall be conducted on the new constituencies set out in this Bill and not on the old constituencies as they exist at present.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), in his contempt for the Bill, hardly did justice to the constitutional point which is raised here. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio seems to have gone one better than the late Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone had several shots, if I may use that expression, at dealing with the Irish Members in this House. First, they were to be out of the House altogether, then they were to be in the House altogether, and the third time they would be in and out, and now they are to be deemed to be in, although they are out. This is the fourth attempt which has been made to deal with the question of the Irish Members, and it is surely monstrous that we here, in the British House of Commons, dealing with the affairs of the Empire, should be called
upon to decide questions which may be decided by the 46 Irish Members who have not been elected on the same question which we, the English, Scottish, and Welsh Members, have to be elected on. It is all very well to say it may be May and June, but let us suggest that the Irishmen were first elected in January and that the House is dissolved in December. It may be dissolved on some vital question of another war, or, let us say, whether the Government have fulfilled their pledges in regard to an Anti-dumping Bill, and they are forced to go to the country 11 months after the Irish Members were elected. We are to go to the country and to come back, after having put the very question that is the subject of the dissolution before our constituents, with fresh energy and directions from our constituents, and what happens? There are 300 English, Scottish, and Welsh Members voting one way, and 300 the other way, and these 46 Irish Members, who have not dealt with the question at all, or received the instructions of their constituents upon it, are under this Clause to come and decide the fate of the Empire. One has only to state the case to let it be seen that the House ought not to pass this proposal at all. It was not in the original Bill, but was merely an afterthought. The point is, whether the House of Commons is, on perhaps a most vital question, to be dominated by 46 Irish Members, who have not been elected on that question, or whether the same 46 Irish Members am to undergo the expense and the inconvenience of another election, and I say it is clear that the balance is in favour of their having to undergo the difficulties of an election. Mr. right hon. Friend, if I may say so, has been very reasonable this afternoon. He has frankly told us, in regard to the bulk of his Amendments, that he did not believe in them himself, and was quite prepared to leave them to the House. This Amendment, I submit, is on the same lines as the others, and I hope he will leave it to the House.

Mr. MOLES: There has been a good deal of reproach with respect to the violation of Constitutional Government, and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) suggested that this proposal is a monstrosity. He stretches the time to the very limit of the full 12 months— I
doubt not to the last second of the 365 days—and he assumes that you might be elected in January and that some great unforeseen constitutional crisis, which has not entered into the mind of any human being in this House, would suddenly precipitate itself at about 11 o'clock on the evening of the 31st December. I submit that it is perfectly fair that an Irishman, who has had in the meantime to run the gauntlet of a fresh election and to seek a new mandate from his constituents, which no other Members in this House have had to undergo, should not be put to the expense and the confusion and all the turmoil that attend elections in Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: In answer to the last speaker, I think that after all there appears, even to a layman, to be a much more important point involved Either this Parliament is dissolved on a certain day or it is not. I think that is the most important constitutional point involved. I cannot very well see, without considerable modification of the Constitution as we have hitherto known it, that the King can dissolve parliament and yet there can be 46 Members still belonging to it, and I should like to hear from the Attorney-General what he has to say on that point before we come to a decision.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I agree with what has just fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend, and also with what was said by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks). I think there is a constitutional question involved, and I quite agree that if you discuss the matter on purely academic grounds, there is a very strong case against the Amendment, but if one makes the admission, as I freely do, that from the constitutional point of view there is an anomaly in the bare possibility of some months elapsing during which 46 Irish Members might be sitting in this House who were not elected on the same issue as the rest, one ought, on the other hand, to have some regard to such questions as convenience and expense. It is only natural that the question of expense is nothing to hon. Members like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), but really ordinary Members of this House who are not millionaires have to have some regard to expense, and the House will remember that during the last Reform Bill this question of the expense of elections had a
very large place, and stringent provisions were made limiting the expenses of parliamentary candidates. I would point out that as it is only for one occasion, and that it can only be after the first election for the Irish Parliament, we surely might take the risk, not to put it higher than that, of some such constitutional anomaly arising as my hon. Friends have imagined, very unlikely, I submit, but still possibly. This is a transition period. There must be inconvenience in setting up a new Constitution for a part of the United Kingdom, severing this Parliament, and making the necessary arrangements for bridging over that transition period, but I really do not think it is very unreasonable that we should be asked to undergo the possible risk of some such imperfect mandate as my hon. Friends imagine, for a few months, on one occasion only, having regard to the inconvenience which would be occasioned if the Amendment were not made, and to the great and onerous expense which would be thrown on candidates from Ireland if they should be called upon, quite unnecessarily, except to satisfy that academic constitutional position, to undergo two elections within a few months.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I think it goes a little further than this. We know that there is a Home Rule proposal in regard to Scotland, and that at some ultimate date there may be similar proposals for other places as well, and if you lay this down here as a precedent, although I am sorry to disagree with hon. Members opposite, and develop this system, you will have other occasions and other places in which you will have a portion of the House of Commons which has not been elected on the same issue as the major portion of the House. That, as I understand it, is not the right system on which to run your constitutional Assembly here. I am sorry for the inconvenience of those worthy representatives, I have no doubt, of the Irish people who will have to return to their constituents, but may I hold out the hope that possibly they might come back in an even stronger position with the added glory of a second election in so short a time, which will stand enormously to their prestige in this House? I quite realise that the question of expense is very serious, but possibly that might be got over. There is a
necessity to look at this question not only from the Irish point of view, but also from the point of view of the House of Commons and the nation as a whole, and of the fact that we are the great central deliberative and legislative Assembly for the whole country.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: The county I represent is only represented in this House by three Members. Under this ridiculous Proportional Representation, that entire county is now to be represented by five Members, and each one of those will have to look after his constituents all over the county. If the elections are held, as it is quite possible, on different days for the Ulster Parliament and this Parliament, and it is possible for the Member who may represent the county in this Parliament also to represent the county in the other Parliament, that will mean two elections for him. If there is a dissolution of this Parliament, and this Amendment is not carried, he will then have to stand three elections, whereas the Members elected for English constituencies would only have to stand one election, and I think, when you consider the expense of all this, it is not too much to ask the House, for at least the first election, to let us have this Amendment. I do not think it is an ungenerous thing to ask the House. We must consider the question of expense. It is quite possible that, after the three years which have been granted to us in the Clause already passed, we may have, smaller constituencies, but this only refers to the first election, and, therefore, I would appeal to the House to let us have the Amendment.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am sure we all sympathise with the Ulster Members in the view they have put forward as to the inconvenience and expense to which they might be put if the event contemplated by this Amendment is reached, and from that point of view I should be entirely disposed to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend; but I must say I am more impressed by the danger of making an inroad into the Constitution by saying that, in this Imperial House of Commons, when Parliament is dissolved—

Captain LOSEBY: It is not.

Sir J. BUTCHER: My hon. Friend says that when Parliament is dissolved
it is not dissolved. That is a proposition which could not be maintained in its logical form by any really sane man. But let me put it in another form. You dissolve Parliament as regards some of its Members, but you do not dissolve it as regards other of its Members. Surely that is an inroad upon our constitutional methods, which ought not to be tolerated for one moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said it is merely technical, and that this is an occasion which may never arise at all, and can only arise once. Is it not better, if the contingency is so remote as that, that you should inflict some little expense and inconvenience upon individuals than that, in order to meet one occasion like that, you should make an inroad on the practice and constitution of Parliament? But it is not a mere technical objection. It may be quite possible that an event of great public importance may demand a dissolution of Parliament. It is within the recollection of every one in this House that these events arise unexpectedly, and Parliament is dissolved. I cannot think of anything more detrimental to the character of this House and to the value of its decisions than that there should be a large number of people, entitled to vote upon large new measures, when they have had no mandate from the constituencies at all. Therefore, although I deeply regret that there should be a possibility of inconvenience and expense to my Friends from Ulster and other parts of Ireland, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the maintenance of the constitution is even more important.

Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: I agree with the objections taken to the Amendment which has been proposed from the Front Bench, and I have risen to suggest an alternative that might possibly prove acceptable to the House as a whole. It is that, instead of putting this Section of the Bill into operation, we should enact that those Members who are returned to serve in this Parliament from Ireland should continue to serve till a dissolution of Parliament takes place. I feel myself that we would lose nothing by accepting that as an Amendment. The interval between the coming into operation of this Bill and a possible dissolution of this Parliament cannot be long, and. in the circumstances in which we are, I feel very
strongly that we should not suffer in any way by allowing the existing representatives from Ireland to continue to serve in this House until this House has been actually dissolved. I make that suggestion.

Sir E. CARSON: Of course, it is inevitable, when you are breaking up this Parliament in the way this Bill does, that there should be great difficulties of this kind with which to contend. My hon. and learned Friend opposite put the extraordinary argument that Members from Ireland should be allowed to remain on in this House if Parliament were dissolved, because they had been previously elected. I quite agree that is almost indefensible. At the same time, there are many worse anomalies in the Bill. On of the most extraordinary—and it shows to me how right I am in always assessing at the very highest maximum the generosity of English and Scottish Members— is that if this Bill passes, and we are conducting our own local affairs in Ireland, we shall be allowed to come here and try to defeat your local Bills, and probably make the majority one way or the other. On the other hand, there is another anomaly, and it is that you will be here setting up the taxes for the Irish taxpayer with only forty or forty-five Members, or whatever the number is present here, whereas our proper quota is sixty-five, and taxation will be without proper representation. That, to my mind, is an even more serious anomaly under the Bill, and one which, as I pointed out in Committee, is likely to lead to a great deal of friction. When you start taxes in Ireland, I think you will hear a good deal about imposing those taxes without our being represented at our full strength in this House.
Another anomaly is when you proceed, as you have a right, to alter in any way you like our constitution over there, and with reduced representation here. It all comes about from considerations of opportunism and expediency. You are proceeding on no principle to break up the United Kingdom. That is the short answer to the whole matter. You undertake an impossible problem. You can separate. You can say to the Irish, "Go and become a Republic." I can understand that. That is the kind of thing which is intelligent, but you cannot deprive us of our great privileges we
hold at present, in that we are equal with you and greater than you, because we have got two Members to every one you have, and you are now putting us into a subordinate position, on the demand of a certain section of the Irish people. Of course, when you proceed to carry out this kind of proposition, you are necessarily landed in these anomalies. But so anxious am I to stand well with my English and Scottish fellow-countrymen, that I really do not think it is worth while, if there is a strong objection on their part, to ask the Government to press this matter. At the same time, we would be put to an enormous expense for this reason, that the constituencies which were returning 45 Members instead of 145 would be enormous constituencies. One constituency would be the whole county of Tyrone and the whole county of Fermanagh. It would be a very nice place to drive about and hold meetings in at elections, and a very considerable expense. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has made a suggestion which I would press upon the Government for their very serious consideration. After all, you have borne with us for a long time in this House with our present numbers; cannot you bear with us until another dissolution? That is really all the right hon. Gentleman opposite asks, I understand. We have been elected under your law for the same term that you have been elected, and why should we not be retained here during that time? It may not have to come into operation at all, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the suggestion which, I think, is a generous one. I think it is a far better solution than the Amendment that has been put down, and I would ask my right hon. Friend favourably to consider and to see whether that is not the real way out of the difficulty.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. MacDonald) for having made the suggestion he has. I think he really has cut across the mark. This Amendment, which I put down, was put down for the purpose of meeting a real hardship. I quite agree that one does not like any encroachment on constitutional practice, but the situation was exceptional, and in view of such exceptional circumstances, and had no other
way been found, I was prepared to ask the House to accept this Amendment. My right hon. Friend has found another method, which is to leave the Irish representation in this House without alteration until another dissolution. That I am prepared to accept. As the matter now stands, these representatives will remain for at least 15 months. I do not for a moment suggest that a dissolution is going to take place even as soon as 15 months, but should it be so then the Bill, as it stands, would be sufficient to meet the case. It might go on another 16 or 36 months. Therefore, that gap can be bridged by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and I shall endeavour in another place to find the words necessary to carry out the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am going to object. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I think hon. Members might have the decency and courtesy to listen. Certain reasons have been given by the representative of the Government for withdrawing his Amendment. I wish to give my reasons for opposing this. To begin with, I do not quite understand what is the intention of the Government. I understand the right hon. Gentleman for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. MacDonald), but what happens in subsequent years? I understand that by this suggested Amendment the present representatives shall remain in the Parliament. I should have thought they would have been wanted in Ireland on the opening of their own Parliament. But let that pass! I gather that if the Imperial Parliament is dissolved, and their own Parliament not dissolved, they will have to seek reelection, and then unless other words are found by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio they may have to undertake three or four elections to our one. Still the same objection remains, as has been pointed out, for the subsequent years, the objection that this Amendment attempts to remove. I see certain de-merits in this Amendment. It is going to lead to inconvenience to the Irish Members who would sit in this Parliament. Personally I am wholly opposed to Irish representation in this Parliament. Anything that will drive home the added expense of extra elections, and so on, I think is to be welcomed, as it will lead
to the re-casting even of this proposed Bill.
The present suggestion, to be put in place of this Amendment, that the present representation should remain until the first dissolution is to me extremely mischievous. I do not know how long the Parliament will last, but I hope a very short time. It may, however, last the full five years for which it was elected. This Bill may go through and may operate in a way in a part of Ireland in, I suppose, quite a few months. Yet the whole of the present members representing Irish constituencies are to remain in this House. I think that is extremely wrong. For one thing, they are needed in their own country for the start of the new Parliament if they do honestly mean to work the measure in the North-east of Ireland. But I object most of all to the immediate giving way of the Minister in charge of the Bill—the immediate giving way to every crack of the whip by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson). This is the second time this afternoon. I regret profoundly that there have not been some of my own Friends here to protest against it, but it gives a light showing the whole genesis of this Bill, and of the Government's treatment of it, and I am afraid also, for the most part, by the House of Commons. If I can get any support on this particular question I shall certainly divide against the withdrawal of this Amendment. The Government do not seem to know their own minds. Their mind has to be made up for them by their real master, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. Earlier in the afternoon I thought I was quite safe in relation to an Amendment, and very foolishly went upstairs to a Committee only to find when I came down that, at the crack of the whip of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Government had given way. Now we are seeing the same thing repeated. I object to that on principle. I trust I have given some reasons of substance why the Governmental Amendment should remain.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: From the constitutional point of view I do not know that there is very much to choose between the original Amendment of the Government and its new form as put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. MacDonald). But I wish to draw the
attention of the House to one aspect of this and other proceedings this afternoon. It is very remarkable that all these Government Amendments seem to be put down at the instance of Ulster, and in the interests of Ulster. I am far from complaining of the action of the Ulster representatives in pressing for these Amendments. It is their right. It is their duty. But I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact, and to ask hon. Members to draw the contrast between the attitude of the Government towards these Ulster Amendments and their attitude towards other Amendments put forward to alleviate the position of those who are going to live under this Bill in the South. This afternoon we have had nothing but Ulster. First it was to enable Ulster to dig a deeper ditch against Irish Union. Then we had another Amendment to enable a change in the franchise to be made which, obviously, would take throe years instead of six years. Now we have this Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman below me (Sir E. Carson) said he would not press on the Government, and he very generously accepted even a more favourable Amendment from Ulster's point of view! Ulster's over-representation, which he quite frankly admitted, is to continue until the end of this Parliament. I agree Ulster has asked for the alleviation of a very real hardship. I do not complain of it. I only want to draw attention to the fact that equally real and far greater hardships exist in the South of Ireland, and when they are brought forward in this House in not one single case is any Amendment accepted with a view to making the position better.

Colonel NEWMAN: About 80 Members have been elected in Ireland as Members of this Parliament who are not here. They object to take the oath. We always take the oath when we take our seats. The hon. Gentleman who sits above the Gangway (Mr. Malone) took the oath the same as I did. He is now the recognised member of a Soviet system—a revolutionary. Supposing it occurred, as it might, that these 80 Members, who have been elected for the South of Ireland, and who have not taken their seats, should do so after taking the oath. They will do so, and act apparently just as the hon. Member for Leyton acts at the present moment. How are we to face that? Is it not worth while looking
at that danger? Supposing the Imperial funds were used to pay the election expenses of these Members, and the unfortunate event occurred of a double election. I am not a betting man, but I could imagine a betting man say that the contingency was very remote, and betting 100 to I against it. But supposing it did happen. Is it not easier to face it now than subsequently?

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 20.—(Powers of taxation.)

(1) The power of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland to make laws shall include power to make laws with respect to the imposing, charging, levying, and collection of taxes within their respective jurisdictions, other than Customs duties, Excise duties on articles manufactured and produced, and Excess Profits Duty, Corporation Profits Tax, and any other tax on profits, and (except to the extent herein after mentioned) Income Tax (including Super-tax), or any tax substantially the same in character as any of those duties or taxes, and the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland shall have full control over the charging, levying, and collection of such taxes as their respective Parliaments have power to impose, and the proceeds of all such taxes shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words
Provided that it shall not be competent for the Parliament of Southern Ireland or the Parliament of Northern Ireland to impose any tax, whether recurrent or non-recurrent, of the nature of a general tax upon capital, not being a tax substantially the same in character as an existing tax.
The object of this Amendment is to prevent the new Irish Parliament levying a tax on capital. May I commend the skill with which this Amendment is framed? I say that the more readily because it is not my own framing. The House will be interested to know that the most carefully and skilfully framed Amendment was framed by the Government draughtsmen and was put down on the Order Paper during the Committee stage of the Bill in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. I congratulate him and his advisers not only upon the merits of the Amendment but upon the skill with which it was framed. Having said so much, perhaps I ought to leave it to my right hon. Friend to deduce arguments which will convince the House that this Amendment which appeared in
his name on the, Paper ought not now to be accepted. It is remarkable and really an unexplained thing that this Amendment, admirable as it is, having appeared in the name of my right hon. Friend, suddenly disappeared, vanished into smoke, at whose instigation or for what reason I cannot imagine. Doubtless the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut. Commander Kenworthy) would say it was coercion, and talk about the "crack of the whip" and other absurd methods and ridiculous nonsense of that sort about the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn, that he puts into his own mind and tries to put into mine.
I propose in a few words to suggest to the House the reasons why I think this Amendment should be supported. The question of a capital levy has often been debated, and it has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend, or some of his other equally persuasive colleagues, that the objections in theory to this tax, and the difficulties in practice, would be so insuperable that it would be both unjust and inexpedient to apply it in this country. This levy on capital is a thing which we in this Parliament could not think of adopting, and, if that be so, if that tax is not only inexpedient, but is considered unjust for Great Britain, I should like to know why the Irish Parliament should have the power to impose it. This is all the more serious when you reflect upon the very great powers which this Bill gives to the Irish Parliaments. By Clause 24 they are given absolutely unlimited powers of imposing income tax and supertax upon the unfortunate people domiciled in Ireland, Mid this capital tax would not only be in addition to the income tax and super tax in this country, but it would be upon all their income, however arising.
My right hon. Friend leaves it open to the Irish Parliament to introduce the method of a levy on capital. He will probably say that if the Parliament of this country thinks this tax is inexpedient to apply to Great Britain, why not leave it to the new Irish Parliaments to decide what is expedient in Ireland? To that I reply that in this country you have trained and skilled Civil Servants, and the Treasury. You also have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is presumably skilful, and you have a Parliament which will control any injustice, and yet you think it is inexpedient to propose such a
tax here. In Ireland you will have wholly untrained and unskilled Civil Servants advising the Treasury, and you will probably have a Chancellor of the Exchequer of whom the best that can be said in the South of Ireland will be that he will be unskilled. You will have an Irish Parliament utterly untried in the arts of statesmanship, and it is to this Chancellor of the Exchequer and these Civil Servants and that Parliament that you are going to give the power of exercising this extreme expedient.
Let me make the most favourable hypothesis I can. Let me suppose that if this power is given it will be exercised by the Southern Parliament with no desire to injure political opponents. Even on that supposition it would be most unwise to give them this power. I do not think, however, that this supposition should be entirely ruled out, but if you contemplate the Southern Parliament coming into existence at a time like this, it may be influenced by other motives than fair and reasonable financial desires, and they may be inclined to inflict hardship and injustice, with some sinister object, and if they do, here you are putting into their hands by this Clause a weapon which will be used for the purpose of creating the gravest injustice. I ask the House to reject the possibility of giving the Irish Parliament power to make a levy on capital by accepting this Amendment, and not put into the hands of the new Irish Parliament a power which has not been shown to be necessary for their legitimate financial operations, and which must, if used, be an unwise operation, and which may, in circumstances we can readily imagine, prove to be an instrument of injustice and oppression.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I desire to second this Amendment. When I saw the Government Amendment down on the paper a short time ago referring to this tax I thought the Government had put down an extremely good proposal, and I imagined that they must have had good reasons for putting it down. I ask the Minister without Portfolio what are the reasons which prompted the Government to put down this Amendment, and what are the reasons which prompted him to withdraw it. I think we are entitled to be told why at one time an Amendment was put down preventing such a tax as
this in Ireland, and why it has been withdrawn. If power to inflict a capital tax would be injurious in this country, it would be doubly injurious and dangerous in a country like Ireland.

Mr. NEWBOULD: We have listened to two very remarkable speeches from the Proposer and Seconder of this Amendment. We have been told that it has been found inexpedient to levy a tax of this nature in this country. We have also been told that the Chancellor of Exchequer is opposed to a tax of this nature, not only now but in the future. The Proposer and Seconder seem to forget that at one time the Leader of this House was in favour of a capital levy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, a tax on war wealth was suggested, which is a tax on capital. We are told that such a tax would be dangerous here, and, therefore, it must be equally dangerous in Ireland. Many of us in this House think that this country will have to resort to this form of taxation, and I feel sure that in the present condition of the finances of this country, even those who are opposed to this tax now would not be prepared to pledge themselves that if the position altered and got worse they would not have under certain conditions to resort to this form of taxation. To propose an Amendment of this sort, in view of the fact that this House is in no sense committed to oppose this tax, is to declare that Ireland should not have the same power that we have in this House, and that seems to me to be absurd.

Sir J. D. REES: I do not think many words are required to condemn a capital tax. This House has never proposed anything of the sort, and the country has never been prepared for it. Therefore I think it is wasting time to use any arguments against a capital tax. I realise, however, that the Minister without Portfolio is in a very difficult position in regard to this matter. This is a Bill which professes to grant financial independence to the Irish Parliament. It is no use giving powers like this if you have not got the money to do it. In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, and he is a good man struggling with adversity to-day, I hope he will accept this Amendment, because if the Irish Parliament has the power to impose a capital tax, that tax, like the
Income Tax and the Super-tax, concerning which the next Amendment deals, will be levied upon the most worthy and the most deserving of the Irish landlords. It is those who are resident in Ireland, who live upon their own properties, and have not forsaken and turned their back upon their own country, who will be severely penalised if the Irish Parliament is given this power.
It is all very well to say that this Parliament has power to levy a capital tax, and that it would not be fair to put this disability upon the Irish Parliament. It is too much to suppose that this House is blind to the action which an Irish Parliament is likely to take towards the resident landlords. The richest, the most important, and the most independent of the Irish landlords are not domiciled in Ireland, and it is those who, in spite of great difficulties, live in Ireland and spend their money on their property who will be exposed to the full fury of the resentment of the new Parliament. I know it is a difficult thing to impose a disability of this character, but so exceptional are the circumstances, and so certain is it that those who will be penalised will be the most deserving, that I lift up my voice and beg the right hon. Gentleman to do what he can to limit the powers and mitigate the severity of the action which is likely to be taken against those, who, I repeat, are the most deserving of all residents in Ireland. The Minister without Portfolio has shown himself to be a statesman of moderation during his career in this House, and I have listened to him with admiration and approval. I hope he will discover some means of doing justice to those for whom I feel no little apprehension.

7.0 P.M.

Sir E. CARSON: The proposal in this Amendment is very far from being unimportant. As has been already pointed out, the Government themselves certainly, at one stage of' the Bill, thought it was of extreme importance, because they put on the Paper a Clause in exactly these words, and then, without explanation, took it off. There must have been two Cabinets on the subject, one of which came to the conclusion that the Clause was an absolute necessity, and the other of which, after further meditation, decided that it was not necessary. Under these circumstances, one should examine the nature
of the proposal. I am not going to argue the question of a capital levy in this country, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, whether it is feasible or whether it is not. I have my own view on that; it may be right or it may be wrong, but I will venture to assert to the House that no capital levy can be justified except for extreme Imperial purposes, such as the payment off of war debt to the payment of any debt incurred with the general consent of the Realm for the maintenance of the Kingdom. No one would propose a capital levy for local purposes. Would anyone think of giving the London County Council power to make a capital levy for the purpose of laying down new drains? It would be absolutely absurd. That being so, I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend that Imperial taxation which applies to Great Britain will apply to Ireland. You retain full power of taxation. What would be the effect of allowing the Irish Parliament to make a capital levy? It would take away from the Imperial Parliament assets which are taxable for Imperial and other purposes. Is not that an absurdity? Would it not be an absurdity that a subordinate Parliament should be able to deprive the Imperial Parliament of necessary assets for taxation?
It does not stop there. On what capital is this subordinate Parliament, whether in the North or in the South, to levy? Take a man like Lord Pirrie. He lives sometimes in Belfast, sometimes here. He has a great business in Belfast, he is probably the greatest shipbuilder in the world. He has businesses on the Clyde and on the Mersey. He is interested in various other matters in this country. Take his case. Take the cases of other men similarly situated. What would the Irish Parliament be able to do as regards Lord Pirrie? Would he be required to pay on all his capital wealth, on the whole of his property, if a demand is made? He might reply: "A great deal of my property is in England and Scotland and elsewhere, and you have no right to make a levy on it." But the Irish Parliament would answer to that, "It does not matter where the property is situated, you must pay on it." Could anything be more disastrous? It might be that in certain cases the property owner, for the purpose of paying the taxation to the Irish Parliament, would have to close his English or Scotch
businesses. I hope the Government will return to the same moment in which they put down this Amendment. After all, in Ireland there are not many who have money, but they ought to be encouraged as far as possible to live and spend it in that country. Yet you are going to drive them out. I know myself of two or three who are already preparing, in consequence of what you are saying in regard to imposing additional Income Tax and Supertax, to leave residences where they have for many years spent a considerable part of the 12 months—their old family places. You are driving them out, and now you are leaving them open not merely to this, but to a capital levy.
Under the Bill an Irishman domiciled in Ireland has to pay on your taxation; he has to pay Income Tax, he has to pay Customs and Excise, he has to pay Excess Profits Duty and he has to pay Supertax. What chance will a man of that kind have in Ireland if there is put on him an additional Income Tax, an additional Super-tax, and a capital levy? Just see the absurdity. It is to be put on not merely his Irish property but the additional Income Tax and Super-tax can be charged on property which he has in England, Scotland or Wales, or on the Continent, or in the Colonies, or anywhere else. All I can say is that any man who under these circumstances and with these risks would continue to live in Ireland for the pleasure of being a target for Sinn Fein assassinators, to my mind deserves not only the Victoria Cross but even burial in the Abbey as an unknown hero. The Bill ought to go in an entirely different direction. I can assure the House and I can assure my right hon. Friend that what you really want is to encourage people to bring money into Ireland. You will never do that as long as you claim the right to tax them to the fullest extent for your own purposes—for Imperial purposes and to tax them whether they like it or not. This is one of the most vicious parts of the Bill. You are taxing them here without any reference to their wants or needs or to what they are able to pay, and in addition to that you are telling them that after you have taken your bite out of the loaf the subordinate Parliament can take anything else that is left. Is that a hopeful outlook for inducing people with money to stay in Ireland, or to go there to start business? Yet that is
wanted very badly. Instead of allowing general powers of this kind you ought to have taken care that Irishmen living in Ireland, when you have taken charge of their purses so far as required, shall be protected as regards the balance. If my hon. and learned Friend goes to a Division I shall vote with him, not at all on the question of the principle whether a capital levy is a good thing or a bad thing, but because I feel perfectly certain that the power to impose any such levy upon my own country will divert capital which is very badly needed in that country, and will prevent the progress and expansion of trade and industry.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I suppose this Amendment will now be accepted by the Government, but I am not quite sure whether, after all, it is not a scheme for getting the rich men in England to settle in Ireland—to draw wealthy capitalists to that country. Is it desired to make it a home for frightened millionaires? I have a certain amount of sympathy for them. I can see reasons why this Amendment should be accepted by the Government, or by that illustrious docile Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio. I have attempted before now to point out how extraordinarily unworkable is the fiscal system laid down in this Bill. You have given power to the Irish Assembly to impose Death Duties, but you keep the power of levying Income Tax in this country. The scheme will not work. It will be a great incitement to the authorities in Ireland to levy a very high Death Duty. Why indeed should they not make that Death Duty as much as 19s. in the pound? The speech to which we have just listened goes still further to show the House the unworkability of the fiscal proposals of the Bill. When the question of a capital levy is whispered, and apparently some good fairy whispered it into the ear of the Government a few weeks ago, they begin to see how unworkable their scheme is and try to legislate against it. We know the history of this Amendment, we know why the Government put it in. I have a strong suspicion where they got their orders from to take it out. There were probably rumblings in Belfast on the Trades and Labour Council. This capital levy is not likely to be made in the South and West of Ireland, at any rate, for generations. It will only be in the North East, and the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir
J. Butcher) therefore comes forward as a crusader in order to save the Irishmen in the North from the results of a capital levy. It shows the utter insanity of the fiscal proposals of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Duncairn suggested that a capital levy should only be imposed for some great Imperial purpose. I quite agree; and the sort of capital levy I had in my mind, if Ireland was given fiscal autonomy, was one which would enable them to get rid of the indemnity they are to pay to this country. They might, by means of it, capitalise the £18,000,000 which they are to hand over to the Imperial Exchequer every year, and they would then be in a position to offer a lump sum down. Why we should put a hampering Amendment of this sort into the Bill I cannot for the life of me understand.
May I ask the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) what is really the difference between a very heavy death duty and a capital levy? I am talking of a death duty of 15s. or 18s. in the £. Under the provisions of this Bill that can be imposed. Why have not the Government put in some limiting Clause as to the amount of the death duty? They have put in safeguards with regard to Income Tax and other things. I raised this matter in Committee, but I got no reply from the Government. The Minister without Portfolio did not choose to reply to my observations. As I had no one to help me, it did not matter what I said. I hope on this occasion a few people will support me—the few people who have some idea of the unfitness of putting a hampering regulation of this sort into a Bill which is supposed to propitiate Irish moderate opinion.
Hon. Members who know Ireland—I know it very slightly, but I do know it a little—will, I think, bear me out when I say that a capital levy in the agricultural districts of Ireland, of South and West Ireland in particular, is extremely unlikely. The only possible proposal seriously put forward now, as things are at present, is that Belfast is the place for a capital levy. May I appeal to hon. Members opposite on the back Bench below the Gangway, who have tried to bring about union between the two parts of Ireland, to support me here in resisting this Amendment? If there is the
shadow of a capital levy hanging over the heads of Lord Pirrie and his like, they will be drawn politically towards the Conservative, Royalist, and Catholic parties. This Amendment is insulting to North-East Ireland and it is ludicrous as applied to South-West Ireland. I am surprised that a distinguished Irishman like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York should have the effrontery to rush in where the Government feared to tread.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken asked: What is the difference between a death duty of 15s. or 18s. in the £ and a capital levy? The answer is a very simple one: People do not all die at once. Therefore, a death duty of 15s. or 18s. in the £—though I think it would have an extremely adverse effect upon the interests of Ireland—is a totally different thing from imposing a capital levy upon every single person who happens to be resident in Ireland. I do not know what action the Government are going to take, but I am going to make the suggestion that if they do not feel it is possible for them to accept my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, they should allow the House to divide without the Government Whips being put on. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. Personally, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, but if they do not I trust that they will allow us to divide on this occasion without the Government Whips being put on.
An hon. Gentleman opposite stated that a capital levy had not been turned down in this country. That is quite a mistake. The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that the Committee considered whether or not a capital levy was practicable in this country, and the Committee came to the decision that it was not practicable. We had a long Debate in this House upon it, and it was rejected because it was thought it was not practicable. If it is not practicable for this country, how is it possible that it can be practicable for Ireland? I would point out that if Ireland was to impose a capital levy, and this country did not do it, the result would be that before the Act was passed imposing a capital levy all the capital which had wings—and a good portion of capital has wings—would fly from the country to some other country. Therefore the result would be disaster to
the Irish nation. On the other hand, if it should turn out—personally I hope it never will turn out—that the opinion of this House alters with regard to capital levy, and we decide to impose a capital levy on this country, what would prevent a Bill being introduced to permit the Irish Parliament also to impose a capital levy upon Ireland? That seems to me to be the proper way of carrying out a suggestion of this sort.
I do not want to develop the argument, as to whether or not a capital levy is advisable. I think I am right in saying that every financial authority who has ever expressed an opinion upon this question has held the view that the ultimate result of a capital levy would be to ruin the country which imposed it. I do not count Mr. Sidney Webb as a financial authority, but every recognised financial authority has come to that conclusion. If that is so, why should we saddle a poor country, such as Ireland is, with such a proposal? I hope the Government will consider the suggestion I have made, namely, that in the event of their being unable to accept the Amendment, they will allow a Division to be taken without putting on the Government Whips.

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I think m this matter the second thoughts of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio are much wiser and better. The right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) advanced one powerful argument, no doubt on a sound economic basis, that a capital levy should be employed only for the big purposes of redeeming debt, and so on. True, at the inception of the autonomous Government, of Ireland no such purposes would exist: but, on the other hand, we are legislating not only for the immediate future. In course of time, no doubt, under borrowing powers which they will possess under the Act, the Irish Government will accumulate debts. They may accumulate floating debts, and so on, and eventualities might arise under which special financial measures might be necessary, and, as far as that argument goes, the employment of the method of a capital levy would be legitimate.
I do not think it is in the least useful, or even relevant in this Debate, to discuss the merits of a capital levy as a method of finance. The question is really totally
otherwise. The very powerful arguments that were advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Duncairn should not be addressed to this House. They should be addressed to the future Parliament in Northern Ireland, and we hope some day that he will have an opportunity of employing them there. The power to discuss, and to come to a resolution on, whether a capital levy is suitable either in the North or the South of Ireland, if these Parliaments are to be of any value at all, is one that can only be rightly considered and truly judged upon by those Parliaments. It is wholly relevant, it is an intrinsic part, it is natural, to the general powers of taxation and financial control which we are giving to those Parliaments. In many respects some of us think that these powers are unduly and arbitrarily restricted. To impose this further limitation would be to impose a further arbitrary limitation. What purpose can it serve? Either it is a good thing or it is a bad thing. If the Parliaments are responsible tribunals they, and they alone, can come to a decision on the matter. I do venture to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that to add this further limitation and restriction to the Bill can only have the effect, without serving any useful purpose, of creating irritation and dislike for the Bill in the minds of Irishmen.
This question is not separated from 150 other questions which we might discuss and debate here. If you are going to restrict the question of a capital levy, you might as well restrict the powers of the Irish Parliament as regards capital punishment.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down described this Amendment as a further vexatious limitations upon the powers of the Irish Parliaments. I want to submit that it is a logical, and, indeed, an inevitable accompaniment of the limitations which are already imposed. If powers to levy Income Tax were vested in the Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland, I should be able to find some substance in the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend, but you cannot separate the effect of a capital levy from its effect upon the produce of Income Tax. In the discussion in this House on the effect of a capital levy, it was said by Members of the Government, if a scheme for a capital levy were practical at all,
it made very little difference to the Exchequer whether they got their money in meal or in malt. You might have a capital levy and a consequent reduction in Income Tax, or you might have no capital levy and keep the Income Tax at a high figure. In the present case, however, the Income Tax is to come to the British Exchequer, whereas a capital levy would go to the Northern or the Southern Parliament. Therefore, the very fact of allowing these Parliaments to make a capital levy would mean that the contribution to the reserved taxes which Ireland is to make, and from which we are to take the Irish contribution to Imperial expenditure, would be thereby diminished, and therefore this power to make a capital levy might actually be used, if it were so desired, by either of these Parliaments, in order to evade their obligation in regard to that contribution to Imperial expenditure. I can only think of one argument which can be used by my right hon. Friend against this Amendment, and that would be if he could say it was unnecessary because there are already words in the Bill which cover the point. Failing that, this matter is not, it appears to me, by any means one merely for Irishmen living in Ireland, but one which is of serious importance to the British taxpayer.

Major HAYWARD: I think that the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) has rather lost sight of the fact that, although it is true to say that the power of levying Income Tax is retained by the Imperial Parliament, yet the Irish Parliament would have the power of levying Surtax, and also of granting relief from Income Tax and Super Tax. He says that it does not touch the point, but I think it does, because the Irish Parliaments will have the power to impose additional Income Tax to the extent, if they think well, of 20s. in the pound. If that power is in the Bill, then the question whether or not you are to give the power to impose a capital levy is really not of much importance, and from that point of view it seems to me that there is not much merit in the Amendment one way or the other. I think, however, that the fact that it has boon urged by hon. Members from Ulster is very interesting, because it reveals once again the altogether new shadows which are darkening their outlook. In the old days, they were very much afraid of the Nationalists in the
South, but now, as I have pointed out in another instance, their fears are in an altogether different direction; they are now afraid of their own people in Ulster. I pointed out just now that they were afraid lest the Ulster people, through their representatives in the Ulster Parliament, should pass a Bill which would enable them to amalgamate with the South. Now they are afraid that this same Ulster Parliament may impose a capital levy. Seeing that you are giving them the power to increase the Income Tax to any extent, I do not attach very much importance to that. I hope, however, that the Government will not accept this Amendment because, as has been pointed out, by so doing they will show once more what has been shown again and again through the course of these Debates, through the Bill itself, through the Amendments which have been accepted, and, above all, through Irish administration at present, namely, that you are not trusting, and never will trust, the Irish people. I believe that that is the profound cause of the great trouble which at present exists, and I hope that the Government will not, by accepting this Amendment, do one other act in the same direction.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: After the speech that we have just heard, we can quite realise why the hon. and gallant Member sits on that side of the Gangway, where finance is as weak as any of the other accomplishments which the present Opposition have to their credit. I am certain that it is not their fault, but perhaps they will be lucky and learn something some day. The whole point, as I understand it, of the objection to allowing the Irish local Parliaments at the present time to impose a capital levy is that you will be limiting the amount of capital which is producing income, and that the Imperial Parliament has the first call on that income, for the payment of taxation. If there is anything left over beyond that, the Irish Parliament can step in and take it. They have, so to speak, the second mortgage on the income. This Parliament has the first, and the reason why I am absolutely against giving to the Irish Parliaments the power to raise any form of capital levy is that to do so would be to reduce the amount which produces income, and so to reduce the amount from which the Imperial Parliament can take their money.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: A good deal of curiosity has been shown as to the history of this Amendment. It has been pointed out that at one time it was on the Paper in my name, that it was taken off, and that now it is down in the names of my hon. and learned Friend the. Member for York and other hon. Members. It got on to the Paper because it happened to get into the wrong batch of papers that went to be put down. That is the whole of the mystery: It was an Amendment which was being considered by me—

Earl WINTERTON: Does not that apply to several other of your Amendments?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was an Amendment which was being considered by me at the time, and it was not then intended that it should go down on the Paper at all. That is the whole of the mystery. As soon as I found that it was on the Paper I withdrew it. Having given that explanation, I come to the more interesting question as to what is to be done with the Amendment now that it has been presented to the House. I am not going to deal with it from the point of view of the merits of a capital levy, but rather to ask which Parliament, if there is to be at any time a capital levy, ought to bring it in? Ought it to be the Imperial Parliament, or the Central Parliament of a series of Parliaments, or ought it to be brought in by a local or subordinate Parliament? Clearly, if there is to be any capital levy at all, it could only be justified on the ground that the capital raised by it was being employed for capital purposes and not for income purposes, and so long as we are bearing the whole of the War debt, it would clearly be for the United Kingdom Parliament, and not for the local Parliament, to make such a levy. Moreover, in the actual working of the capital levy you would require to use the Income Tax machinery. I do not think it will be possible without the officials who ordinarily deal with Income Tax, without the returns which ordinarily come in in regard to Income Tax and without the whole of the Income Tax machinery. All of those officials and all of that machinery are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, because the Income Tax itself is one of the reserved taxes. It has been pointed out that the
engine of a capital levy might be maliciously used in such a way as to destroy the Income Tax, which is reserved.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be possible for the Death Duties to be so used?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London has pointed out, Death Duties do not occur all together. Deaths occur one after the other. They do not cause a large realisation of capital at any one time, and so the duties do not tend to defeat themselves. I do not want to pursue that, because it is part of the question of the merits of a capital levy as such. The other point, however, which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned, is a point of importance, namely, whether the Death Duties tend to destroy the Income Tax. Of course, to a certain extent they do, but they only fall once upon the subject, and not more than once, whereas a capital levy might quite easily fall year after year, or at short intervals, and might, in fact, take the place of an Income Tax. At this very moment there is a capital tax in Italy which is almost indistinguishable from our Income Tax, because, although it is called a capital tax, it is payable by instalments year after year. Should an imitation of the Italian capital tax be imposed by either of these subordinate Parliaments, it would, in effect and in fact, tend to destroy the Income Tax, which is reserved here.
That is my view of the Amendment on its merits. I did not, however, put it down myself, because, although I have held that view all the time, I do not really think that it is necessary. I do not believe that either of the subordinate Parliaments would be so ill-advised as to introduce and put into force a capital levy. If, however, the House thinks that it is wise to protect the revenue of this country against the possibility of such a tax, I should be the last to oppose it, because I myself have strong views about a capital levy in these circumstances. Therefore, if the view of the House is that this Amendment should be accepted, I shall not oppose it.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add the words
until such time as a tax of this nature is imposed by the Imperial Parliament.
I think the House is very much indebted to the Minister without Portfolio for the frank explanation which he gave at the commencement of his speech. There was this difficulty, however, that, although he explained how the Amendment got on to the Paper, he did not explain how it came off. I am not going to stand against the Government in accepting this Amendment, because I think that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn was a very powerful one indeed. A tax of this kind should only be imposed for really Imperial purposes, and should not be lightly imposed by a subordinate Parliament. As has been pointed out by several hon. Members, and has been admitted by the Minister without Portfolio, it does not appear to be very necessary one way or the other. The Amendment to it which I propose would, perhaps, prevent any Division upon it, and would put it in a form which, I think, would remove the only real objection that has been urged against its acceptance, namely, that it imposes another restriction and limitation on the Bill. My Amendment would prevent the imposition of a tax of this kind by the Irish Parliament, quite regardless of the action of this Parliament, and it removes the appearance of further restrictions upon the financial powers of the Irish Parliament.

Dr. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I observe that the Government always accepts any Amendment that is supported by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) though he accepts no Amendment from those who represent the people in the South and North of Ireland on these benches. On this occasion I am sorry I did not hear the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I heard enough to make me understand what it was. It was an appeal to the House to save them from their friends in the North of Ireland. I regret the distrust which representatives of Ulster in this House show in those who elected them and sent them to this House, and the fear they have of what they would do if power were given to them in the North of Ireland. The Government as usual has accepted this Amendment, which is supported by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), and I think the Amendment proposed by by hon. and gallant Friend (Major
Barnes) is desirable, and I hope the Government will accept it. I think it would be another injustice to Ireland, if and when a capital levy is ever imposed in this country, that the people of Ireland, and especially the people of Ulster, should not have the privilege of putting a similar tax into operation there, and I support the Amendment, because I think the people of Ireland should have the same power in these matters as the people of Great Britain.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment, out of no-hostility to the views expressed by the hon. Gentlemen who have proposed and seconded it, but it would be much fairer to leave things open for future consideration by Parliament so that if, and when, a capital levy is adopted by this House for the Imperial Parliament it would be perfectly open to them to remove this restriction on a subordinate Parliament if they should think fit. But I hope we are not going to pre-judge the question now. I can quite well understand that while it may be desirable to impose a capital levy in some form some day or other with certain restrictions, it might still be undesirable to have a capital levy raised by subordinate Parliaments, and therefore I would ask my right hon. Friend not to accept this Amendment, but to leave the thing open so that in the future, if the question ever comes up in this House of imposing a capital levy here, we may, if we think fit, relax the prohibition which is imposed by the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I think really the Amendment to the Amendment makes the whole thing nonsense because it would mean that Ireland is not to be allowed to have a separate capital levy until it is already paying a capital levy imposed by this Parliament.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: indicated dissent.

Lieut. Colonel GUINNESS: May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that under this Bill the subordinate Parliaments in Ireland are not to be given fiscal autonomy. That is retained over here, and when under this wonderful arrangement the Imperial Parliament imposes a capital levy on Great Britain and Ireland—because presumably we are to go on with this indiscriminate
taxation—then on top of that Ireland is to be allowed to impose an additional capital levy. That is obviously absurd.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry if I misled the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We apologise to the House for this Amendment. It does not appear in the Paper and possibly it may have given rise to misapprehension. Obviously it was never suggested for a moment that the right should be given to levy two capital taxes. One by the Imperial Parliament and one by the Irish Assembly. What guided us in the matter was that after all conditions in Ireland are rather different from conditions in this country, over a great part of Ireland, at any rate, and it might be very desirable for the Irish Parliaments to arrange their own capital levy. So long as we get our money one way or the other I do not see why there should be any objection from us. However, the same right already exists of putting on a surtax in the case of Income Tax. I know my hon. and gallant Friend has objected to that, as I object to it. I object to the whole fiscal arrangements of the Bill, but the same right of imposing a surtax on Income Tax exists, and even if that were the effect it would only bring it on all-fours with the fiscal arrangements for Income Tax which exists already, and I am very disappointed that the right hon. Baronet cannot accept our very reasonable and simple Amendment.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot accept this Amendment. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say he did not mean two taxes but that is what the Amendment does. Under this there is reserved to the Imperial Parliament, and taken away from any of the local Parliaments, the power to make a capital levy, but if a capital levy was made at all it would in all probability only be justified on the ground that it was paying off a capital debt of some sort. A capital debt is owned as much by Ireland, Scotland and Wales as by England, and if there were a capital levy here at all it would be a capital levy including Ireland. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests on top of that that Ireland should proceed to scramble for what is left, or would scramble to try to get her capital levy ahead of the Imperial capital levy. I cannot accept the Amendment and I am not in the least influenced by the taunt of the hon. Member (Dr. Murray). I assure him that a taunt like that leaves me quite cold. I do right whenever I think I ought to.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Question put, "That the words
Provided that it shall not be competent for the Parliament of Southern Ireland or the Parliament of Northern Ireland to impose any tax, whether recurrent or non-recurrent, of the nature of a general tax upon capital, not being a tax substantially the same in character as an existing tax, be there inserted in the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes. 17.

Division No. 359.]
AYES.
[7.55 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Fildes, Henry


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Bruton, Sir James
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Foreman, Henry


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Butcher, Sir John George
Forestier-Walker, L.


Atkey, A. R.
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Forrest, Walter


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Carr, W. Theodore
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Casey, T. W.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Gilbert, James Daniel


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barlow, Sir Montague
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Glanville, Harold James


Barnett, Major R. W.
Clough, Robert
Goff, Sir R. Park


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Coats, Sir Stuart
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Courthope, Major George L.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Betterton, Henry B.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Greqory, Holman


Bigland, Alfred
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Blair, Reginald
Davidson, J. C.
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')


 Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


 Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


 Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hailwood, Augustine


 Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


 Breese, Major Charles E.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


 Briggs, Harold
Dixon, Captain Herbert
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Hinds, John


Brown, Captain D. C.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)]
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Hopkins, John W. W. I
Neal, Arthur
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, W. H.


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Oman, sir Charles William C.
Sutherland, Sir William




Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Taylor, J.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Parker, James
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Jones, J, T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Kidd, James
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Tryon, Major George Clement


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Perkins, Walter Frank
Waddington, R.


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Pinkham, Lieut. Colonel Charles
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Warren, Lieut.-Col, Sir Alfred H.


Lorden, John William
Pratt, John William
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lort-Williams, J. 
Prescott, Major W. H.
Whitla, Sir William


Loseby, Captain C. E. 
Purchase, H. G.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Rae, H. Norman
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Lynn, R. J.
Randles, Sir John S.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Winterton, Major Earl


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Remnant, Sir James
Wise, Frederick


Macquisten, F. A. 
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Marks Sir George Croydon
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Martin, Captain A. E.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Yale, Colonel Charles Edward


Mason, Robert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Middlebrook, Sir William 
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Younger, Sir George


Moles, Thomas
Seager, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Seddon, J. A.
Captain Guest and Colonel Sir R.


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Sanders.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Simm, M. T.



Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Steel, Major S. Strang



NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wintringham, T.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Nowbould, Alfred Ernest
Young, Lieut.-Com E. H. (Norwich)


Galbraith, Samuel
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hay ward, Major Evan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)
Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy and


Hogge, James Myles
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Dr. Murray.


Johnstone, Joseph
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

CLAUSE 24.—(Power of levying Surtax in addition to or granting relief from Income, Tax and Super-tax.

8.0 P.M.

(1) The Parliament of Southern Ireland or of Northern Ireland shall have power either to impose an additional Income Tax or Super-tax (hereinafter referred to as a Surtax) on individuals resident and domiciled in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively in respect of the total income of those individuals from all sources, or to grant relief from those taxes or either of them to such individuals, and the Surtax may be imposed or the relief given either generally to all such individuals or to individuals whose total income exceeds, or is less than, such amount as may be determined by the Act imposing the tax or granting the relief, and in the case of the imposition of a Surtax, whether or not the individuals are liable to Income Tax or Super-tax.
(2) The Act imposing the Surtax may provide for its being levied and collected in like manner as Super-tax, and in such case for applying the provisions of the Income Tax Acts as to the levying and collection of Super-tax.
(3) Such relief as aforesaid shall be granted, by way of repayment of any part or the whole of the Income Tax or Super tax paid by the individuals to whom the relief is granted, and the Act granting the relief may provide for the amounts so re-payable being repaid in like manner as other repayments under the Income Tax Acts.
1278
(4) The levying and collection of any such Surtax and the making of such repayments shall rest with the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, and the proceeds of the Surtax shall be paid into, and the repayments shall be made out of, the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be: Provided that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and other authorities and officers by whom Income Tax and Super-tax are levied and collected may at the request and at the expense of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, levy and collect such Surtax or make such payments on behalf of the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland.
(5) Sums collected or paid under this Section, whether or not collected or paid by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, shall not be taken into account in determining for the purposes of this Act the amount of the Irish share of reserved taxes.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
My reason for moving the rejection of this Clause is that it gives to the Irish subordinate Parliaments power to levy an Income Tax unlimited in amount, and a Super-tax unlimited in amount, upon every fraction of a man's property, whether situated in Ireland, England, or
abroad. I can conceive that the tax might be justified if it were strictly limited in two respects; if it were limited in point of amount, and if it were limited by a provision such as we have in regard to British and Colonial Income Tax, namely, that double tax shall not be charged, and that a man who pays certain Colonial Income Tax shall only pay a limited amount of British Income Tax. As the Clause stands, it gives to these subordinate Parliaments power to charge Income Tax, unlimited in amount, upon property wherever situated, and there is no relief whatever from double Income Tax. The injustice under the Bill as it stands is only in the case of the domiciled Irishman. The domiciled colonial gets relief. If he pays Colonial Income Tax he pays less Imperial Income Tax; but the unfortunate domiciled Irishman would be called upon to pay full British Income Tax and Super-tax, and full Irish Income Tax to any amount that the subordinate Parliament might decide. The effect would be that if the subordinate Parliaments so choose, a man could be absolutely ruined, and his business wiped out. You would have the Imperial Parliament charging 10s. or 12s. in the £ Income and Super-tax, and the Irish subordinate Parliament, as I anticipate in the South of Ireland, would not be slow to follow the example of the Imperial Parliament. It would say, "The Imperial Parliament charges 10s. or 12s. Income Tax and Super-tax, and we will have at least as much," with the result that the domiciled Irishman would find his income absolutely taken away. I hope I shall succeed in persuading the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Clause, but if I do not succeed, I hope to suggest certain limitations which will improve the Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must take his choice either to move the omission of the whole Clause, or to confine himself to his Amendments in the form of limitations. He cannot do both.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I was only going to point out that if the right hon. Gentleman were willing to accept certain limitations upon this indefinite power as it stands in the Bill, I should not press my Amendment to leave out the Clause, but if he is unable to tell me that he will accept limitations in order to make the
power a reasonable and just one, I shall have to ask the House to omit the Clause altogether. There is no such thing in existence throughout any part of the Empire as this unlimited power of imposing unlimited income tax without rebate. The unfortunate man who happens to be domiciled in Ireland alone of all British subjects is to be open to this very serious taxation. The right hon. Gentleman may say that the Irish Parliament must have power to raise money by way of taxation, and that is so, but the power must be limited in such a way as to make it reasonable. If you do not introduce restrictions this Clause is in essential characteristics unfair and unreasonable.

Mr. SPEAKER: What does the hon. and learned Member move? Does he move to leave out the Clause?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then I shall not put the other Amendments.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not possible for me to put my Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not if the hon. Member moves to leave out the Clause. He must take his choice of either moving to leave out the whole Clause, or else seek to win on one of his Amendments. I have said that I will take whatever course he may elect: I cannot take both.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Would it be in order for me formally to move to leave out the Clause in order that the hon. Member may afterwards move his Amendments?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not going to take both. I put the hon. Member on his election to take either one course or the other.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am afraid I did not understand that. I thought the point of order was that I must not speak upon the Amendment at any length in moving to omit the Clause. If you rule that if I move to omit the Clause I cannot afterwards move to mitigate its provisions, it is a very difficult matter. I do not suggest that your ruling is wrong, but I thought it was not unreasonable to seek to put some limit upon the powers in the Clause, if the Clause is not left out.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has forgotten the Rule about passing over. I
put it as delicately as I can. I give him the option to state which course he likes.

Sir J. BUTCHER: May I amend my election and be allowed to withdraw my Amendment to leave out the Clause and to move the two Amendments standing in my name, namely, to leave out the words "and domiciled" and to leave out the words "from all sources," and to insert the words "arising in Ireland." Shall I be in order if I do not press to leave out the Clause?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have said so. I will take whichever course the hon. Member may elect.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Then I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "and domiciled" ["resident and domiciled"].
This Amendment must be read in connection with my next Amendment, to leave out the words "from all sources" and to insert the words "arising in Ireland." As the Clause stands, the man domiciled in Ireland has to pay Income Tax on the whole of his income wherever it arises, whether in Ireland or elsewhere. A man resident in Ireland, but not domiciled there, will pay no Income Tax at all, even on his Irish property. I suggest that the fairer way would be to say, that whether a man is resident and domiciled in Ireland, or whether he is only resident in Ireland, he should pay Income Tax upon his Irish property and not upon his whole property. Unless we leave out the words "domiciled in Ireland," a man who has a very large property in Ireland, if he is not actually domiciled there, that is if it is not his real home, will pay no Income Tax there. That is not fair to the Irish Parliament. If a man has a large property in Ireland, and resides there part of the year, the Irish Parliament ought to be allowed to tax him, but only upon the property arising, in Ireland. Another reason why I want to leave out the words "and domiciled" is that if you leave them in, you invite law suits. It is difficult to decide the question of domicile. There have been many costly lawsuits for the purpose of ascertaining the domicile of a man. A man may have two or three houses, and spend a certain amount of time at each place. What is his real home? The unfortunate man who is called upon to pay Irish taxation upon
the ground that he is domiciled in Ireland, does not want to be involved in a lawsuit. He wants to know "aye or nay," am I liable? If the question of his liability depends upon a lawsuit as to his domicile, it is a very serious matter.

Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: The hon. Member has foreshadowed his intention of moving two Amendments. The first one which is to extend the power of the Irish Parliament to those resident in Ireland is very objectionable, but the second one to narrow the power of the Irish Parliament to income arising in Ireland is absolutely necessary, or what becomes of the arguments of the Government that you must not complicate the Income Tax by endless returns. On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will these Amendments be put separately? I understood that Mr. Speaker said he would only allow one Debate.

Sir J. BUTCHER: On a point of Order. I understood from Mr. Speaker that I was at liberty to Move both Amendments, but for the purpose of illustrating my meaning on the first Amendment I was allowed to indicate the Amendment standing lower down.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Does the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds wish to Second the Amendment?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No; I am objecting.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to Second the Amendment. I do not understand the Clause. If I go to have a little salmon fishing in Ireland and spend three or four months there am I at once to become liable to Income Tax on the whole of my income? As I read the Clause it looks like that. I know one gentleman, formerly a Member of this House, who has started a racing establishment in Ireland. He has got a very nice house with beautiful rock gardens and spends three or four months of the year there. He is a brewer with big profits made here. Would the whole of his income be liable to Income Tax imposed by the Southern Parliament? We are entitled to some little explanation as to what the Bill means.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The hon. Gentleman who has seconded the Amend-
ment obviously does not appreciate what it does, because it docs the very thing to which he objects. It extends liability to Irish Income Tax to those not domiciled in Ireland, but only resident there like his friend who takes the fishing. I am puzzled by the line taken by my hon. and learned Friend who has brought forward this Amendment. It is quite without precedent if you go beyond domicile to limit the liability to Income Tax to those who are resident. There are precedents for taxing all income arising in a country. That is the law in the United States. A British subject who has income arising in America has to pay American Income Tax on it in addition to British Income Tax. There are other precedents for taxing those who are domiciled in a country on what they bring into the country. That is the law, I believe, in this country. I doubt if there is a precedent for making a man liable to Income Tax merely by means of his residence.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The proposal in the Bill as it was drawn was different. The words "and domiciled" were put in.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Government would be well advised to leave them there and to make the Bill more consistent with other Income Tax laws. From the point of view of collecting revenue, apart from any question of justice, I understand that you can get to a man who is domiciled in Ireland. Probably he could not get away. From the fiscal point of view to include this man who is resident there would probably produce very little, but it would have a very bad effect upon the influx of capital for Irish industries. Right hon. Gentlemen are fond of telling us that Ireland is enormously rich, when the fact is that her proportion of the wealth of the United Kingdom, which was one-twentieth 25 years ago at the time of the Royal Commission, is only one-fortieth to-day. Even if she is richer, there is no doubt that Irish industries do need more capital, and you will not get that capital from people whose main interests are not in Ireland if by investing capital in an Irish industry they are to be liable for an Irish Surtax which otherwise they would escape. I think that for that reason it is most desirable to limit this surtaxing power as much as we can. Personally, I think that the principle of the Surtax is most objection-
able. The only sound course is either to trust the whole of the machinery for Income Tax and Super-tax to the Irish Parliament, or else to keep the whole machinery over here. The Government are trying to get the best of both worlds. From the point of view of exchequer convenience, no doubt their proposal is very sound, but I do not think that that ought to be the only consideration. One must also take into account justice to the subject. Already we can realise that double Income Tax is objectionable on general grounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took special measures to deal with (hat difficulty throughout the British Empire in this year's Budget. It is more than ever undesirable in Ireland because of the special conditions of political life. The majority of the dominant political party is below the Income Tax and Super-tax line.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is arguing on the question of leaving out the words "and domiciled." He seems to be going beyond that point.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Debate took rather a general line when Mr. Speaker was still in the Chair. I apologise if I have gone outside the particular Amendment, but what I feel is this. Though prompted by the excellent motive of lightening the burden of the man domiciled in Ireland, I do not sec that this would get over the real difficulty. Therefore, I am against any of these, as I may call them without disrespect, tinkering Amendments, because they do not get you out of your fundamental difficulty that this, is certain to be used unjustly, and it is playing steadily into the hands of the enemies of this country and facilitating the destruction of that section of the population who have been loyal to the British Empire.

Sir E. CARSON: I cannot understand why my hon. and learned Friend has moved this Amendment. In my judgment, the whole of this part of the Clause, which gives the right to impose a second Income Tax and Super-tax, is most vicious and shows really the impossibility of double taxation on the same tax. You leave this Parliament to tax as much as it likes by means of Income Tax and Super-tax, and then you say to the other Parliament, "You can do exactly the same thing." Which gets
precedence I do not know. Suppose the tax here is 15s. in the £,and the Parliament in Ireland puts on another 10s. or 12s. It is plain that one or the other will have to give way, because there will not be enough to pay the whole of the taxation of the two Parliaments. That shows the unwisdom of setting up two powers of taxation on one asset. That is really what it comes to. You ought to allow the subordinate Parliament to tax, but it ought to be on taxable assets which are not touched by this Parliament. What would be the result of the Amendment? It would be to increase the power of the Irish Parliament and to give them jurisdiction to tax any man who happens to have a residence in Ireland. I should prefer an Amendment to strike out the word "resident" and to confine it to those domiciled in Ireland. That seems a far more legitimate way. If we accept the Amendment, and if I happen to have a house in Ireland and go over there for a couple of months in the year, the Irish Parliament will be able to tax the whole of the income and assets I have, in whatever part of the world they may be. The only thing I could do would be to ask Sinn Fein to burn down my house. I could then apply for compensation from the county and get out of the place as fast as I could.
My hon. and learned Friend says that the word "domicile" will lead to a great deal of litigation. That would be a very good thing, but it is another argument against the method of allowing this double taxation. I believe in litigation myself. I recall that when I was Solicitor-General there was a case of a wealthy American who lived all his life and established his family here. Three judges of the first Court held that he was domiciled in this country. The case was then taken to the Court of Appeal, and three judges held that he was domiciled in this country. That made a total of six judges who held the same view. The case then went to the House of Lords, and four judges dealt with it. At the end of a week they could not give judgment because two were one way and two the other. They therefore reserved judgment, but one of those who was going to hold that the American was domiciled in this country happened to die, and by a majority of one they over-ruled seven judges. I mention that only to show
that we are creating a vast amount of litigation by this proposal. Reference has been made to those who might go to Ireland for fishing, or who might own a hunting box or a racing stable. Such people would have to get out of Ireland and make a fresh start elsewhere. That would be very disastrous and very unfair.

Mr. M. MACDONALD: I think the Government ought to reconsider this Clause as a whole. The subject is extremely complicated, but there are certain general features of it that are quite clear. The United Kingdom Parliament is to continue to impose Income Tax on the United Kingdom as a whole, and out of that Income Tax it has to contribute a certain proportion to Ireland; in other words, it has to determine out of the Imperial Income Tax what is the amount of revenue that arise from the tax in Ireland. That is done under Clause 21 without any reference to domicile at all. In Clause 24 the Irish Parliaments are given power simply to vary the Imperial tax. It is not true that they are given power to impose a second Income Tax. No doubt it is a second Income Tax, but under the Bill it is a power only to vary the Imperial tax; the phraseology is perfectly clear.

Mr. R. McNEILL: That is quite true, in one sense. It varies the rate, of the Imperial tax, but it does not affect the collection of Income Tax on the same income by the Imperial Parliament.

Mr. MACDOlNALD: I agree. The Irish Parliaments are given power to add to or subtract from the Imperial tax. What I want to know is, why the Government do not use the principle of domicile in determining what portion of the Imperial tax, the tax imposed and collected by the Imperial Parliament, is derived under that tax from Ireland, while it is proposed to use the principle of domicile in determining the individual on whom the Irish tax is to fall. There is another point suggested by this Amendment. The Bill gives the Irish Parliament power to collect additional Income Tax. Suppose that the Irish Parliament imposes no tax at all, or suppose that the Irish Parliaments say to the Imperial Parliament that they will reduce the tax by 1s. It is to be reduced, I suppose, only in the case of those domiciled in Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment was as anxious as the Government are anxious that persons simply resident in Ireland should not be liable for surtax, and for obvious reasons. You might have a case of people going over for sporting purposes, or for other causes, and who brought a good deal of money into the country. Those men should be encouraged to go there, and no barrier should be erected against persons on this side who wish to be resident there. But it is quite another matter when the men is not an Englishman, but an Irishman, and that is the really popular way of putting it. An Irish Member of Parliament may come here and live most of the year here, but no one would ever mistake him for an Englishman, or suppose that he was domiciled here.

Sir J. BUTCHER: There is great difficulty in finding out if a man is domiciled in Scotland, and the same thing would apply in Ireland.

Mr. HENRY: ; There would be no difficulty as to whether a man was an Irishman or an Englishman. Quite different considerations apply to Scotland.

Mr. MACDONALD: In which country would the right hon. Gentleman say Lord Lansdowne is domiciled?

Mr. HENRY: I should say, without hesitation, England.

Dr. MURRAY: And Ulstermen?

Mr. HENRY: They are domiciled in Ulster. The proposal in the Clause seems to me perfectly reasonable. It limits the taxation on persons who are not really Irishmen and throws the taxation on those who live in Ireland and bring up their children as Irishmen or Irishwomen. People who are resident there for a short time or at certain times are not domiciled there. The real reason I think for putting forward this proposal is to spread the area of taxation over people who happen to be resident for a short time in Ireland and in that way lighten the burden. That is a proposal we could not accept. As regards the point put by the right hon. Member (Mr. M. MacDonald) it does not really arise.

Mr. MACDONALD: You do not adopt the principle of domicile in determining what amount of Income Tax is
to be given to Ireland in the reserved taxes, and why do you adopt it here?

Mr. HENRY: Because it is a different tax and the effect of Sub-section (5) of this Clause is to take it out of the other class altogether and put it on a footing of its own.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "from all sources," and to insert instead thereof the words "arising in Ireland."
I hope to have the support for this Amendment not only of the Irish Members but of many English and Scottish Members as well. By the Bill as it stands a man domiciled in Ireland is liable to pay Income Tax to the Irish Parliament not only upon the whole of his income arising in Ireland from land or dividends from Irish companies, or whatever it may be, but he is liable to pay Income Tax upon every fraction of income he has from any source, such as from land in England or in any other way. I suggest that is a very great hardship because it is not disputed that although the man is domiciled in Ireland he is actually liable for the tax imposed by the British Parliament upon the whole of his income wherever it is situated. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Murray MacDonald) that it seems rather unnatural that a man domiciled in Ireland should be liable to British Income Tax upon the whole of his property from wherever derived. The anomaly and the injustice, as I call it, is that an unfortunate man, because he is domiciled in Ireland, who is already liable to Income Tax at the British rate upon all his income, should under this Bill be liable to be taxed in Ireland upon the income of all his possessions, so that whereas now he may pay 10s. or 12s. in the £ Income Tax, the moment the Bill is passed he may be liable to pay another 10s. or 12s. Income Tax to the Irish Parliament. That is too large a price to pay for the advantage of domicile in Ireland. I can quite understand the Government saying that the Irish Parliament must have some power of taxing in respect of property in Ireland, but I do not understand why they should say that because a man is domiciled in Ireland the Irish Parliament should be able to tax him on
every farthing he has in the world. The effect of my proposal is that the Irish Parliament could only tax him in regard to the property he has in Ireland.
My right hon. Friend might say that it is very difficult to say what income does arise in Ireland. My answer is that in the vast majority of cases there is no difficulty at all. Income from land in Ireland arises in Ireland, income from a business carried on exclusively in Ireland is equally derived in Ireland, and as regards income from businesses which are carried on both in Ireland and elsewhere, if the company has its central control in Ireland, then any income the company gets could be defined as income arising in Ireland. I therefore think it is quite easy to get a simple definition as to what is income arising in Ireland and what is not. The other objection which may be urged against the Amendment is this, that if you exempt from Irish Income Tax the income of English property it is a direct inducement to every Irishman to take his property and investments out of Ireland and to put them into England or elsewhere. I grant that there is something in that, but if you are going to say that a man domiciled in Ireland must pay tax on the whole of his income from wherever derived, is not that an almost irresistible inducement to him not merely to take his property but to take himself also out of Ireland and to establish his home elsewhere in order to escape the marauding tendencies of an Irish Parliament? I beg my right hon. Friend to see if he cannot accept this Amendment, which seems to me perfectly reasonable in itself. It would save the unfortunate domiciled Irishman from being absolutely ruined by Income Tax. He probably would have plenty of rates in Ireland, he would have Death Duties in Ireland, and he may have many other taxes in Ireland, but we ought not to give the Irish Parliament power to tax him for the purpose of Income Tax on all his property.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so on two grounds. The first is in the interests of just taxation, and secondly, and quite as strongly, on the ground of the interests of the revenue in Ireland. It is obvious that it must be in the interests of everybody who desires these Parliaments in Ireland to be successful that Ireland should attract as much Income Tax as possible
and refrain from driving out as much Income Tax as possible. It appears to me that unless this Amendment is accepted the effect must inevitably to be to drive a considerable- amount of Income Tax out of Ireland, because in spite of what the Attorney-General said on the last Amendment, there are a great many people, even those who are not merely resident but domiciled in Ireland, whose roots are not so very deep, but what they could be cut adrift, and however reluctantly many men would sever their connection with Ireland, of which they are very fond, in these days of very high taxation and of high prices it might very well be that a man would find that in the ordinary process of economising his resources it remained impossible for him to keep up a connection with Ireland, where he might be subject to this taxation, and also a connection with England or Scotland, where he might have business and where he would also be subject to this very high taxation. He might have to make a choice, and probably in many cases he would be driven to choose as his future residence and domicile England or Scotland in preference to Ireland, with very considerable loss consequently to the revenue in Northern or Southern Ireland as the case might be.
There is another reason why we should accept the Amendment. I do not see how the Clause as a whole is going to work if a man domiciled in Ireland is to be liable to a surtax and entitled to a rebate on the income which is derived from all sources. Let me assume that an Irish Parliament was going to exercise the power given here to grant relief from those taxes from all sources. If a man has got a large income derived from a great many different sources, it may be from land in Ireland, land in England, shares in a shipping company, it may be a man like Lord Pirrie, who has been mentioned earlier in this Debate, with very vast resources, deriving income from all sorts of enterprises, how will it be possible for the Parliament of Northern Ireland where Lord Pirrie may be resident and domiciled, to grant relief from Income Tax payable on his income from all sources? The Imperial Parliament exacts from him some 12s., 13s., or 14s., whatever it may be, in Income Tax and Supertax, and the Irish Parliament will have no power and no machinery by which it can grant him relief from Income Tax on income derived from all sources, but [...]
the taxes in Ireland were confined to income arising in Ireland, then it might very well be possible that, over that limited field which is under their jurisdiction, they would be able to grant the relief which this Clause purports to give. But I do think, before this Amendment is rejected, one of my right hon. Friends ought to explain how it is possible, apart altogether from the desirability of it, as a more matter of taxing machinery, to grant relief as the Clause stands now in the Bill. Even if they can solve the problem, I still think, on the ground of just taxation to individuals and in the interest of the revenue, it is most desirable that the limitation should be accepted which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. SUGDEN: I would like to support the Amendment for two reasons. I feel that if we are to give that assistance to the two Parliaments which we hope to have established in Ireland, we must certainly do all we possibly can to give the business interests of the community their fullest possible outlet, and, as a plain business man myself, I beg to say that there is nothing so detrimental to the enlargement of opportunity and enterprise to any industry and any business as uncertainty in respect to taxation. I have very carefully considered the Clause now under consideration, and also the Amendment, and I say without any hesitancy it will be extremely difficult for any business man properly to focus and assess the amount of taxation which will be put upon his wares or his business or manufactures to get the result he would desire unless the Amendment is accepted. If there is to be the proper opportunity for a business man in Ireland to expand his business, and to retain in employment the people in his own locality, it is vitally essential that taxation should only apply to the properties which are under his immediate consideration. There is another and a second reason. If the whole of the income is considered, we shall have the same anomalies which prevail in respect of Income Tax in this country, and in regard to foreign countries and the Dominions. Neither the Mover nor the Seconder of this Amendment have dealt with the bearing of taxation in respect to the colonies. We know how difficult it is. I
challenge any business man in this House to-night to show how it is possible to focus correctly and decide the proportion of taxes which he must add to cost of the wares he produces in Ireland, if some of his supplies came from his works in any other country, if he has holdings in any other businesses in another country. He may be buying his rubber from the Malay Straits. He may have certain subsidiary companies in India in respect to the manufacture of tyres. He may be obtaining special cotton and French cotton goods for his Irish industries, and if he has any holding in any foreign country, and especially in South Africa (which has a most intricate Income Tax), it is impossible for him to ascertain the exact cost of his wares, because of the impossibility of costing his taxes. Therefore I do suggest that the Government might very properly accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, and give the industries, and necessarily the employés who depend and rest upon the industries more particularly than they do either upon the professions, or especially the agricultural industry the surety which they will have if our Amendment is accepted.

Mr. INSKIP: It is unfortunate that this matter should come up for discussion in a small House, under somewhat similar conditions to those in Committee when this subject was discussed, and the matter was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, in moving the Clause. It was dealt with in a perfunctory manner, although it appears to me to be of the most vital importance, and is one of the critical questions which are not of obvious interest, but which contain the germs of a great trouble between this country and Ireland. The suggestion has been made that the introduction of the word "domiciled" has removed the difficulties that exist. I do not take that view. I think it has increased the importance of this Amendment. The whole Clause seems to be so full of difficulty that I can hardly imagine how it is going to be put into operation. I am certainly not a financial expert, and I know very little about the Income Tax, but I understand this proposal is to allow the two Parliaments to impose what is called an additional tax; that is to say, a tax over and above the other taxes to which an Irish subject domiciled in
Ireland is liable. That is to say, a man who has property in Northern Ireland and in Southern Ireland, if he is resident and domiciled in one of those places, may be subjected to a surtax in respect of the whole of the property in both those parts of Ireland.
I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that, assuming a subject to be resident and domiciled in Southern Ireland, and to be subject to this additional tax in respect of the whole of his property which he has in Northern Ireland or in this country, he will still be subjected to the regular taxes which the Parliament of Northern or Southern Ireland and the Parliament of Great Britain may decide to impose. That is to say, he will be subjected to the tax of the Northern Parliament on his property and to the tax upon his ordinary property in this country, and he will be subjected to the additional tax imposed by the Southern Irish Parliament in respect of the property, and for all I know—and I have considered it to the best of my ability— I am bound to think that the taxation that will fall upon him in respect of his property in this country will be assessed in respect of the value of his property in all parts of the United Kingdom. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman, with the knowledge which he has, tells us that that is not so, I am sure the House will be only too glad to be corrected; but I think I am right in that, namely, that the property in Great Britain of any Irish subject who has to pay this additional tax in Ireland will be assessed at the rate of tax which is applicable to the property of the total value estimated by reference to his property in all parts of the United Kingdom.
That seems to me—I do not say a monstrous proposal, because one wants to dispose of this question, if possible, by argument—but it is a most objectionable proposal. The proposal too is all the more curious because as a tardy act of justice we have tried in this House to remove the anomaly of a double Income Tax from the property of citizens in the outlying parts of the Empire. At the very moment that we have recognised the separating effect of a double Income Tax —because it has a separating effect—and have removed the anomaly by the Finance Act of this year, at that very time we are imposing a double Income Tax by
an Act which I am sure is not intended to separate Ireland from Great Britain, but is supposed to maintain the union, and at the same time secure the, better government of Ireland. I am not quite certain, and I have not been able to look the matter up, but my recollection of the Committee stage, and the discussion there is that reference was made to what Burke said on the matter more than 100 years ago. It showed what a separating effect this duplication of taxes has upon a country, and that one of the ways of keeping the different parts of the Empire united is, as far as possible, to simplify and co-ordinate taxation. Of course, it may be necessary in so far as local matters are concerned to have taxes collected locally upon property situated in a locality, but so far as possible—and this is obvious, I should think, to every Member of this House—it is not desirable that anybody should be subjected to a double tax on respect of the same property.
I want to point out as one objection, that the property of a subject resident and domiciled in Southern Ireland is not only subjected to a tax on his property there, but to all his property and everywhere. Take the converse case. You have some subjects of vast wealth who have a great deal of property in Ireland, and who are neither resident in Ireland or domiciled, though they have both to be covered by this taxation. They are neither resident nor domiciled. There is one case, which I daresay will be in the minds of hon. Members—though I do not think it is necessary to mention particular cases—of the man who has a very large income from house property in Dublin. If, as I believe, he has neither residence nor domicile in Southern Ireland, the whole of that property will escape. It pays other taxation, it will be taxed by this Parliament, but actually it escapes the scope of this measure, or, rather, it will not participate in the act of injustice which this Section will cause.
I apprehend that the Southern Parliament will say when it is making up its Budget: "We require so much on this additional Surtax." If the people who regard property as entailing certain duties reside in Ireland, they will be taxed not only in respect of their property, but their property everywhere. Those who seek to evade their responsi-
bilities in Southern Ireland, either by changing their domicile, or changing their residence, will not share in the burden of contributing towards the £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year, or whatever it is, which is to be collected by the imposition of a Surtax. I conceive that to be an injustice, because by deliberately evading their duties by residence in the country where they have property, and taking an interest in the management of their property, they evade the obligation which rests upon those who take a different view of their duty to their country, and they escape the taxation which this Section allows to be imposed. It appears to me such an act of injustice that I did my best to draft an Amendment. The Clause, however, as read, is such a difficult one—as my hon. Friend below me has pointed out—and so impossible to understand when it speaks of the relief that it may grant, that it certainly taxes my small ability, and I believe would tax anybody's ability, however great, to draft a proviso, exception, or terms which will provide against the injustice which I have just mentioned.
How can it be right that a Clause which loads to injustice should be allowed to retain a place in the Bill, especially when the remedy is so easy, that is, to leave out these words. Then you will get what everybody conceives to be, and might agree was, just, namely, that each of these Parliaments shall tax the property which comes within its reach and within the dominion of its government. I shall listen with the greatest respect to what my right hon. Friend has to say, but—and I say it with all respect—what he said on a previous occasion did not carry, to my mind certainly, conviction. It is not that I want to rob either of these Parliaments of the power of collecting the necessary revenue, but I do seek to secure equal distribution of whatever burdens may fall upon the taxpayers of these two different parts of Ireland. I want to avoid anything that will tend to separate either of them from this country. I want to avoid anything that will drive people out of their country, although they may retain property there.
I could give the right hon. Gentleman cases within my own knowledge where persons are taking steps to cease to be domiciled, to cease to be resident in
Ireland, in order to evade so unjust a Clause. If this is the effect of it, surely it cannot be a Clause which is either politic or equitable. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest it is. Not that human nature is necessarily wrong or bad. But would not human nature do this; seek to leave a country residence in which causes such unfair obligations? I do hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio will reconsider the Clause, which I think the Government must have put in without proper consideration, and will seek to do something more like justice to those who will be affected by these words. Amendment would not affect the structure of his Bill. I do not think any Amendment could possibly affect the finance of the Bill. I would suggest that by omitting these words, and accepting the Amendment which has been moved, he will be promoting, or at any rate not further weakening, the bond between this country and Ireland, and I am sure he will introduce a feeling of satisfaction and readiness to make his Bill workable amongst those people who will be most affected by this Clause.

Sir L. W0RTHINGTON-EVANS: I think if my hon. Friend had considered a little more carefully this Amendment he would have seen that what he was proposing would lead to much wider evasion than he fears. His proposition is that people both resident and domiciled in Ireland might leave Ireland to escape this surtax, but he is proposing that those who remain in Ireland should be freed from surtax provided they send their capital outside the jurisdiction of the local parliament.

Mr. INSKIP: Surely that would be fair and proper, because all that property would be subject to the tax for Imperial purposes.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Nevertheless, the people domiciled in Ireland are living there for business purposes and of their own choice, and they would be evading the power of taxation by the local parliament. If my hon. and learned Friend's point is that this Clause as it stands is likely to cause people to remove out of Ireland to evade the tax, how much more would there be evasion if his Amendment became law. It is infinitely easier to send £100 over from Ire land to England for investment than to
pack up your traps and bring yourself ever here. It is much more easy to send your capital over. If you agree to this very serious injustice, people who are living in Ireland and living under the Irish Parliament would, if they kept their money in their own country and developed their own industries, which is something my hon. Friend naturally desires, be taxed, whereas if they did not develop their industries and did not use their money in their own country they would be free of tax. That is a definite preference as against using their own money in their own country, and a preference in the case of sending it abroad. I could not accept this Amendment because it would have such a ludicrous effect.
The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip) said that this proposal was subject to the same objection as the double Income Tax, but surely that is not very accurate thinking. The objection to the double Income Tax is that this country taxes a man on his whole income and that the Colony or Dominion docs the same thing. Here the local Parliament will know that under the English Income Tax, in which we are interested—in the Dominions they get no benefit from the tax levied here—they get their share of the full tax levied here. They will know exactly what the subject is liable to and then they will put the surtax on the balance. It is somewhat confusing to talk about this as a double Income Tax which arises where both of two parties are interested to get as much as they can and keep as much as they can out of the taxes placed upon themselves. In this case the English Parliament are levying the tax but the Irish Parliament benefit to the fullest extent. Surtax is only paid upon the balance. My hon. and learned Friend says it is one thing to have taxes collected locally, but these taxes are not collected locally unless arrangements are made with the Imperial Income Tax collector to collect as agents for the local Parliament. Otherwise the local Parliament do collect locally. The Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) found some difficulty about the question of relief. I do not think he sees how the relief Clause will work. Let me call attention to the actual provisions of the Clause. Subsection I says
Relief given either generally to all such individuals or to individuals whose total income exceeds, or is loss than, such amount
determined by the Act imposing the tax or granting the relief.
The hon. Member seems to find difficulty in seeing how such a relief could operate. The local Parliament might say that everyone with an income of under £200 or £300 a year should be entitled to such and such a relief equal to 2s. in the £1 of the tax, or any figure that they choose. The relief can be limited to a class of persons, or it can be limited to income, and this is clearly set out in the Bill. Therefore there is not the slightest foundation for the doubt which my hon. and learned Friend appears to entertain.

Mr. R. McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman is not dealing with my point, which is a question of machinery. If a man in the country who had £5,000 a year in Government loans and the Income Tax is deducted before the money is paid into his bank, he has paid Income Tax at 6s. in the £1. How is a Parliament in Dublin going to give him relief from that?

Sir L. W0RTHINGT0N-EVANS: If the Parliament in Dublin or Belfast had so much surplus income as to dream of giving relief to those with £5,000 a year, I could show the hon. and learned Member how that could be done.

Mr. McNEILL: I only gave £5,000 as an illustration, but take £100.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The relief is more likely to be given to people with low incomes. Anyone below £100 could make a claim for a return of tax, and if there be, any surplus funds they could be repaid. At present, under the finance of the Bill, there will be an estimated surplus of about £2,250,000 in the North, and something like £7,000,000 of surplus in the South. Out of their own funds they are invited to give such relief as they choose by Act of Parliament to provide. As for the machinery there is no difficulty about it. They can say to anyone who is under £100 or £5,000 a year, as the case may be, "Come and claim relief and you shall have it on such and such grounds, either because your income is low or that you have many children or large education expenditure." They can differentiate as they choose, and they can grant relief accordingly.

Mr. McNEILL: Am I to understand that the provisions of this Clause for
relief apply only to very small incomes because the Clause actually says that they may grant relief from those taxes, that is from an additional tax or Supertax? Are the large payers of these taxes to get no relief at all, and, if so, how are they to get it except by a payment out of this small surplus. In future years there may be no surplus.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That will be a matter for the decision of Parliament itself. It may say to a man with £5,000 a year, upwards or downwards, "We will grant a relief of 6d. in the pound on the Income Tax or Super-tax which you have paid, and you will have to claim it by returning a statement of how much you have paid and what your income is, and then at a certain office you will be able to get a cheque for the amount of rebate." Where the money is coming from must depend on what surplus income there is. There is a surplus to start with of 2½ millions. I do not say whether it is adequate or not, but local taxes may be devised which may be preferred to Income Tax or Super-tax, and the Parliament may raise money in that way to give relief to Imperial taxation. The object of this Clause is that there shall be as much freedom as possible to the local Parliaments in this matter. There are many grave difficulties in breaking up the single tax system of the United Kingdom, and it is in order to give freedom without breaking that system up that this Clause has been inserted in the Bill. I am certain that as regards relief these are very valuable provisions. If you are going to give a Parliament power to surtax you must trust it. If it is going to tax people out of existence then the local people will have to see to it that the same Members are not again returned to that Parliament. I cannot accept the remedy suggested here that the tax should only be payable on income arising within the jurisdiction of the Parliament. That would nullify the object with which this Clause was inserted; it would bring about really serious hardships detrimental to the future prosperity of Ireland, because if Ireland wants anything at all it wants to attract capital and not to make it remunerative for those who are resident and domiciled in Ireland to send their capital for investment abroad.

Sir E. CARSON: I only desire to ask this question. Suppose a man has a very small income derivable from Ireland and a very large income in England, Scotland, or elsewhere. Would you give the Irish Parliament power to come over and seize his property here in order to pay the Income Tax? Would the local Parliament have jurisdiction to do that? If not, how is the money to be recovered? Are they simply to say, "We will make you bankrupt over in Ireland," and then is the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland to extend to the man's property over here? The truth of the matter is that the whole of this section is absolutely unworkable. You cannot possibly have two different Parliaments taxing the same assets. Which is to have priority? Suppose they each put on the same Income Tax. Suppose the Irish Parliament, wanting money for various reasons, puts on the same tax as is imposed here. There is only 20s. in the £, after all, except under this Bill. Who is to have priority? My right hon. Friend says that one must give the fullest possible power of taxing to the local Parliament, but this Bill does not do that. Can they impose additional Customs? Can it impose additional Excise? If not, why not? It cannot, because you say that this Parliament must have sole control over Excise and Customs. That is quite right. I do not believe you could work it in any other way. So long as you leave unlimited power to this Parliament to charge what Income Tax or Super-tax or Excess Profits Duty it chooses, it is utterly inconsistent that you should leave to a subordinate Parliament exactly the same rights to put on as much Income Tax, Super-tax, or Excess Profits Duty as it may think proper. That is really taxation in absurdity. You are really declaring by this Bill that the Imperial Parliament and the subordinate Parliament may each take away the whole income of a man. I think the Government should toll us that they will look into this matter again. This Amendment, as I understand it, seeks to limit the subordinate Parliament's power of taxation to income which arises in Ireland. I do not believe it is possible to allow a subordinate Parliament in Ireland to tax a man's assets and income in this country while, at the same time, laying it down that the Imperial Parliament may tax
him as much as it likes. It is inconsistent, and therefore I support the Amendment.

Mr. M. MACDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Sir E. Carson), has been making suggestions which are not justified by the facts. In numerous cases there are two taxing authorities with power to tax the same article and without limit to that power. The proposal contained in this Clause is intended to give the Irish Parliaments some powers to adjust the revenue which it receives to the expenditure for which it is responsible. It presupposes that the powers which they possess over other sources of revenue are not sufficient for their purpose. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment without altering the whole character of the financial provisions of the Bill. Personally, I would not support the Amendment for that reason. That leads me to the consideration of difficulties with regard to working. Let us assume that the Imperial Parliament after the Bill comes into operation adds to the Imperial Income Tax 1s. in the pound, an addition which the Irish Parliaments regard as unnecessary to meet their expenditure. Remember the contribution is a fixed contribution and does not vary according to the proceeds of the tax. Suppose 1s. is added to the United Kingdom tax and levied by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the United Kingdom, and the Irish Parliament comes to the conclusion it is unnecessary for them to have the proceeds of that shilling in order to meet their expenditure, how are they going to repay it? I am assuming for the moment that there has been set up a separate Exchequer and separate Inland Revenue Commissioners in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said a man could re-claim the abatement from the Irish Exchequer, but the Irish Exchequer has never received the money.

Sir L WORTHINGfTON-EVANS: They will get the residue

Mr. MACDONALD: That meets that point, but there is another point closely connected with it. They are going to

have the power of imposing and collecting their own separate Income Tax and Surtax. The Income Tax they levy for their own purposes, apart altogether from that levied for Imperial purposes, and they are going to impose the tax on the total income. How are they going to discover the total income if they collect it themselves? They cannot, obviously, tax it at the source. They could tax at the source only in so far as revenues derived from Irish sources were concerned. They could not tax at the source so far as incomes derived from English sources or from Scottish sources or from foreign sources were concerned. When they are given power to impose and collect, how are they going to discover the income? I do not see how it is going to work, unless the Imperial authorities are going to lay before the Irish Exchequer such information as they have with regard to the total incomes possessed by the taxpayers resident and domiciled in Ireland. That is what puzzles me in this Clause. If the power to levy the tax is limited to Irish sources of income, it is quite easy; but when you extend the power so as to impose a tax upon incomes derived from sources outside Ireland, either in Great Britain or in foreign countries, I cannot see how it is going to work. I do not believe it will work, unless it is arranged under some close understanding with the Inland Revenue Commissioners, such as that they will provide the Irish Exchequer with such information as they have with regard to the total incomes earned by the individual taxpayers resident and domiciled in Ireland.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: Why should not they give them that information?

Mr. MACDONALD: There are certain cases where the Inland Revenue Authorities have not that information. They very nearly have it, but they have not full information. I should have thought it would have been very much better to have limited the financial control to the proposal as embodied in the existing Act.

Question put, "That the words 'from all sources' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 51.

Division No. 360.]
AYES.
[943 pm.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Carr, W. Theodore


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Breese, Major Charles E.
Casey, T. W.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Briggs, Harold
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Scale


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Bruton, Sir James
Coote, Colin Relth (Isle of Ely)


Courthope, Major George L.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rae, H. Norman


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnstone, Joseph
Raftan, Peter Wilson


Davidson, J. C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Randies, Sir John S.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Robinson, s. (Brecon and Radnor)


Davies, Thomas (Clrencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Dennlss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Edge, Captain William
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Seager, Sir William


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Lorden, John William
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lort-Williams, J.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Martin, Captain A. E.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Fildes, Henry
Mason, Robert
Sturrock, J. Leng


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Sutherland, Sir William


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Foreman, Henry
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Forrest, Walter
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Glanville, Harold James
Neal, Arthur
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wintringham, T.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Parker, James
Wise, Frederick


Gregory, Holman
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Harmsworth, c. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hinds, John
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pratt, John William
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Ward.


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Purchase, H. G.



NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Moles, Thomas


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Atkey, A. R.
Dixon, Captain Herbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Remnant, Sir James


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hailwood, Augustine
Seddon, J. A.


Bigland, Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Simm, M. T.


Blair, Reginald
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sugden, W. H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Turton, E. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Kidd, James
Waddington, R.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
White. Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Whitla, Sir William


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Lynn, R. J.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)



Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Macquisten, F. A.
Sir John Butcher and Mr. Inskip.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 42.—(Jurisdiction of High Court of Appeal for Ireland.)

(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court of Appeal for Ireland from any decision of the Court of Appeal in Southern Ireland or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, and all questions which under the Crown Cases Act, 1848, would be reserved for the decision of the Judges of the High Court shall be reserved for the decision of the High Court of Appeal for Ireland, whose decision shall be final, and the High Court of Appeal for Ireland shall have jurisdiction and power to hear and determine all such appeals and questions subject to the rules or orders of the Court.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["whose decision shall be final"], to insert the words, "except as hereinafter provided."
This is a drafting Amendment. The Clause as it stands provides that cases which would be reserved for the decision of the High Court shall in future be reserved for the decision of the High Court of Appeal for Ireland. It is not intended, however, to prevent an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, where such decision would involve a question as to the validity of some law of either of the Irish Parliaments, and the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that such an appeal would lie under Clause 48 of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 53.—(Continuation of service of, and compensation to, existing officers.)

(2) The Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914, shall continue after the appointed day to
apply to any such existing Irish officer to whom they then apply, and the service of any such officer under the Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland or the Council of Ireland shall, for the purpose of those Acts, be deemed to be service in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown and in a public office within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1892:

Provided further that, notwithstanding any rule, regulation, or practice of the Treasury to the contrary, the Irish Insurance Commissioners shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of established Civil servants under the Superannuation Acts in regard to pensions and other rights, and in calculating said pensions, such pensions shall be based on the number of years that have elapsed since the entry of the said Insurance Commissioners into any branch of the public service in a temporary or a permanent capacity.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words
Provided further that, notwithstanding any rule, regulation, or practice of the Treasury to the contrary, the Irish Insurance Commissioners shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of established Civil servants under the Superannuation Acts in regard to pensions and other rights, and in calculating said pensions, such pensions shall be based on the number of years that have olapsed since the entry of the said Insurance Commissioners into any branch of the public service in a temporary or a permanent capacity.
This proviso was put in, on a private Member's Amendment in Committee, and it was accepted provisionally, in order that it might be reconsidered before Report. The object of that Amendment was to give to a particular lady, who is an Irish Insurance Commissioner, the same pension rights as are enjoyed by her male colleagues. I understand that she has since become an established Civil Servant, and, therefore, the words inserted in Committee have become superfluous for the purpose for which they were inserted. In any event, the words of the proviso as it now stands could not be accepted, because they give far greater rights than would be given to a male Commissioner. No injustice will be done to this lady, as she has now become an established Civil Servant, and the proviso is therefore unnecessary.

Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very perfunctory reason for leaving out these words. I see nothing in this proviso about any lady. What it does is to prevent the
Irish Insurance Commissioners from being unfairly dealt with, and to give them the same privileges as Civil Servants. I do not really understand why the right hon. Gentleman wants to take out what was put in in Committee after argument, and I do not know what is meant by his reference to a particular lady. If it would apply to one lady it would apply to the whole of these Commissioners, and I should like some explanation as to why, when it was resolved in Committee, that the status of Civil Servants should be given to these Commissioners, this proviso should be now left out.

Major O'NEILL: I think that my right hon. Friend was perhaps not in the Committee when this question was discussed. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio is correct in saying that primarily this provisio was put in—I moved the Amendment myself—in the interests of Mrs. Dickie, who is the one lady Insurance Commissioner in Ireland. She was then in a worse position as regards pension than the other members of the Insurance Commission, who are men. The Minister has told us that, since this proviso was inserted, Mrs. Dickie has become an established Civil Servant. As a matter of fact, she was an established Civil Servant before the words were put in, but I understand that —owing, no doubt, to the acceptance by the Government of these words—Mrs. Dickie has been granted certain limited pension rights which would not otherwise have been granted to her. That does not mean, however, that her case has been entirely satisfied, because the last few words of the proviso are
and in calculating said pensions such pensions shall be based on the number of years that have elapsed since the entry of the said Insurance Commissioners into any branch of the public service in a temporary or a permanent capacity.
The men members of the Irish Insurance Commission are not subject to certain Treasury rules which exist to the detriment of married women in the Civil Service. Mrs. Dickie, by reason of being a married woman, has not been able to claim the same pension rights as the men. If these words had stood she would have been placed in the same position as they were, and her case is a particularly hard one because I suppose she is one of the best known and one of the ablest of Civil Servants in the whole of the Civil Service
of the United Kingdom, a woman who, by dint of long, strenuous work, has attained to the very highest position in the Civil Service as one of the National Health Insurance Commissioners for Ireland, and all that the Government has granted her since the Committee stage of the Bill has been pension rights in respect of the number of years during which she has been an established Civil Servant, and I think that was only given to her the year before last, whereas if these words were included she would be entitled to claim probably 15 or 20 years' excellent loyal service in the Civil Service. I recognise that the Government has met this lady to some extent, but in view of the very difficult position in which she may be placed under the new form of government in Ireland, they would not be going too far if they admitted the whole of her previous service in the Civil Service as service towards her pension.

Sir F. BANBURY: On appoint of Order. I understand the Amendment is that in the name of my right hon. Friend (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), to leave out from the beginning of line 42 to the end of line 7 on page 43. Is that the Amendment?

Major O'NEILL: Yes.

Sir F. BANBURY: It does not make sense according to my Bill. There is no line 42 on page 42 and there is no line 7 in Clause 53.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet has got hold of the wrong Bill.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. DENIS HENRY: My right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) called attention to the fact that this was a perfectly general Clause, but the facts are as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Neill). The other Insurance Commissioners, two gentlemen, are already on the footing of established Civil servants, and were at the time the Amendment was put down, and there is nothing at all required in the way of legislation for them. Mrs. Dickie was in a different position. She was not then an established Civil servant, but since then she has been put on precisely the same footing as the male members of the Board. Long before she became an Insurance Commissioner she was an inspector of boarded-nut children—a totally different office
under totally different circumstances— and her claim now is to have her pension calculated not upon her position as an established Civil servant, namely an Insurance Commissioner, but to have it calculated upon her former position as inspector of boarded-out children, which was unestablished. The Treasury have recognised the position and put her on exactly the same footing as the male commissioners who serve with her, but they cannot recognise the position that her service in a different office is to be added to her years of service and that is the reason why we ask that these words should be left out. My right hon. Friend (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) in Committee said:
I will take the Amendment as it stands and consider it before the Report stage,
and he took it, but it was purely provisional acceptance in order to see that no injustice was done to the lady.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 54.—(Establishment of Civil Service Committee.)

(2) The Committee shall consist of six members, of whom one shall be appointed by the Treasury, one by the Government of Southern Ireland, one by the Government of Northern Ireland, two by the existing Irish officers, and one (who shall be chairman) by the Lord Chief Justice of England:

Provided that after the existing Irish officers have been allocated in manner hereinafter provided, of the members of the Committee appointed by the existing Irish officers one shall be appointed by such of those officers as have become officers of the Government of Southern Ireland, and one by such of those officers as have become officers of the Government of Northern Ireland.

(5) The Committee may act by any three members, and notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, the Committee may regulate their own procedure.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "six" ["the Committee shall consist of six members"], and to insert instead thereof the word "seven."
Under the provisions of the Bill as it stands now there is a Civil Service Committee of six members who have amongst their duties that of allocating the civil servants in Ireland between the Northern
and Southern Governments. I am altering that from six to seven, in order that there shall be an odd number in case of difference of opinion, and also in order that there may be one more Government representative on the Committee. There will be on the Committee seven members: one appointed by the Treasury, one by a British Secretary of State, one by the Government of Southern Ireland, one by the Government of Northern Ireland, two by the existing Irish officers, and a Chairman appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (]), after the word "Treasury" ["of whom one shall be appointed by the Treasury"] insert the words "one by a Secretary of State.—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

Captain CRAIG: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "officers" ["two by the existing Irish officers"] to insert the words "one of whom shall be chosen by the Council of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants (Ireland)."
Of the seven members of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, two are to be appointed by the civil servants themselves. My Amendment is that one of these two should be chosen by the Council of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants in Ireland. The Civil Service in Ireland, as in England, contains a considerable proportion of what I might call professional or technical gentlemen. There are in the Board of Works, for instance, members of both the Institution of Architects and the Institute of Civil Engineers. We have in the Civil Service members of the Surveyors' Institution and the Medical Association, and in the Local Government Board there are a considerable number of members of the medical profession. There are solicitors and I have no doubt there are also barristers and members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. These gentlemen are, generally speaking, at the head of the various Departments of the Civil Service, and they claim, as I think rightly, that one of the two representatives of the Civil Service on this Committee, which is to have the allocation of the different members of the Civil
Service to the two Parliaments in Ireland and to have a great many other important matters devolved upon them, should be chosen by them. As these are probably the most highly-trained men technically, and, if I may use the expression, highly-educated members of the Civil Service who to a certain degree form a class by themselves, it is reasonable that of these two appointments one should be chosen by those professional gentlemen. I put down the Amendment that they should be chosen by the Institute of, Professional Civil Servants because I think that is the most satisfactory way of choosing them, because this institution of Professional Civil Servants is composed of these very gentlemen on whose behalf I have been moving this Amendment.

Mr. MOLES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HENRY: As the Clause stood before the Amendment which we have recently carried, the Committee was to consist of six members. The number has been increased to seven, and the seventh member is to be elected by the Secretary of State. For the purpose of my argument, I will deal with the Clause as it stood before it was amended. Of the six members, one was to be appointed by the Treasury, one by the Government of Southern Ireland, one by the Government of Northern Ireland, two by the existing Irish officers, and one by the Lord Chief Justice of England. There is a provision in the case of the two members to be appointed by the existing Irish officers that one is to be appointed by the officers of the Government of the Southern Parliament and one by the officers of the Government of the Northern Parliament. If the Amendment now moved is carried, and one of them is to be appointed by the Council of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants in Ireland, it will disturb the balance between Northern and Southern Ireland. When the Clause was originally drafted, the General Association of Civil Servants was consulted, and they approved of the form, and it was adopted and the appointments divided between Northern and Southern Ireland. The Amendment to give to this body of professional civil servants the right to nominate one member would disturb the balance, and, if I may put it mildly, it is much fairer to give representation to the civil ser-
vants irrespective of whether they are professional or not.

Captain CRAIG: In view of the next Sub-section, which, to some extent, meets my wishes, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further Amendment made: In Subsection (5), leave out the word "three," and insert instead thereof "four."— [.Sir L. Worthington Evans.]

CLAUSE 56.—(Provisions for defining of Irish officer and determining claims.)

(1) For the purpose of the provisions of this Act relating to existing officers, any officer shall be deemed to be an Irish officer who is serving or employed in Irish services within the meaning of this Act, and the fact that the salary of an Irish officer is provided in whole or in part out of funds administered by the Government Department in which he serves, or out of an allowance voted for the office expenses of the office in which he is employed, or out of fees, instead of being charged on the Consolidated Fund or paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, shall not prevent that officer being treated as an officer in the Civil Service of the Crown.

Captain CRAIG: I beg to move, after the word "Act" ["provisions of this Act"], to insert the words "including the Standing Solicitor to the Local Government Board for Ireland."
An Amendment similar to this was moved in Committee and rejected by the Government. I now move the Amendment, because the individual on whose behalf it has been placed on the Paper will be very badly treated if the Amendment is not carried. This individual, and his father before him, has been solicitor for the Local Government Board, and their occupancy of the office covers a period of nearly 50 years. Both of them, I understand, have practically given the whole of their time to the work connected with the solicitorship of the board during that period. Although he may not be strictly entitled to be considered as a pensionable officer, the fact that two lives have been spent in the interests of the Local Government Board entitles him at least to some superannuation allowance or some pension at the end of the service. To strengthen the case, I may say that it is not an unheard of thing for a standing solicitor—an expression to which excep-
tion was taken in Committee—to be treated in this way, for in the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919—against which every Irishman voted because amongst other things it brought in proportional representation in Ireland-contained a Clause dealing with officers of the various Departments in Ireland. Clause 8, which deals with certain pensions and emoluments, says:
For the purposes of this Section, any person duly appointed standing solicitor of a local authority before the passing of this Act shall be deemed to be a pensionable officer of the local authority, notwithstanding that his whole time is not devoted to the duties of his office.
That provision fits in with the position of the standing solicitor of the Local Government Board, on whose behalf I move this Amendment. If it was right and proper that officials should be treated in the way specified in the Act of 1910, it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to trout this gentleman in the same way in the present Bill.

Mr. MOLES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wish I had not to continue to refuse to accept these Amendments, but, as the hon. Member admitted in moving it, this gentleman is not strictly entitled to be a pensionable officer. The hon. Member claimed, however, that though he was not strictly entitled, yet by reason of the long service of his father and himself, this House ought to give him something to which he is not entitled. This House is not in the position to judge the merits or otherwise of this gentleman's service. I am told that he did carry on a general practice, besides his work as solicitor to the Irish Local Government Board, and that for the work he did as solicitor to the Irish Local Government Board he was paid his bills of costs in the ordinary way. He was not paid a salary. He was not a salaried officer, and he is far removed from the category of those who are ordinarily entitled to pension. That he has some special merits I am quite willing to accept from my hon. Friend and if that merit is pressed upon the Treasury concerned, which may be the Treasury of the Southern Parliament or the Treasury of the Northern Parliament, proper recognition could, no doubt, be made of his services; but it is not in this House or in this Bill that we should grant exceptional treatment.

Sir E. CARSON: I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was very ungenerous. It is not a case of asking for a pension or an allowance for an officer who has hitherto been unpensionable because there is no alteration in the circumstances. What the right hon. Gentleman has left out of consideration is the fact that by the passing of this Bill you are going to terminate his office. That is the point. You are going to break up the Local Government Board of which he has been standing solicitor for 30 years or thereabouts. He is a most distinguished gentleman. He had a highly successful collegiate career and wont to the Bar, but afterwards, when his father was an old man, he gave up his profession to serve with the Local Government Board and take over his father's business. I quite admit what the right hon. Gentleman says, that if he v-as allowed to go on, and if you were not by Act of Parliament driving him out of his position, he would have no ground for pension, because he is not a pensionable officer.
But is it really worth the while of this House, when we find it necessary to pass a Bill which abolishes the Local Government Board as it exists, and starts two entirely different systems, one for the North and one for the South, to say this Gentleman, after his long and honourable career in a not very easy position, "because you have hitherto not been a pensionable officer, we claim the right to turn you out by Act of Parliament, and say you are not to get a single shilling of compensation"? It is a most unreasonable attitude to take up, and is only taken up because he is utterly helpless in the matter.
My right hon. Friend (Sir Worthington-Evans) has paid no attention to the fact quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Craig) as to what was done under the Local Government Ireland Act last year. The solicitors to local authorities in Ireland in most cases have not given their whole time to that work. In nearly all cases they have been solicitors who have had a general practice and have also acted for the local authorities. Notwithstanding: that, that Act gave power to deal with them analogous to what is asked to be done here. I think that the Government is doing a gross injustice to this Gentleman in saying, "You have served faithfully in your office, but we are going to deprive you of that office, and
you are the one man who is to stand oat without any consideration being given to him under the Bill." It is very harsh treatment, particularly having regard to the fact, as I am able to state without the slightest fear of contradiction, that this Gentleman has been a most efficient solicitor in conducting the affairs of the Local Government Board. Nobody knows that better than my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, who no doubt has met him officially in the conduct of his work. I would ask the Government to reconsider the matter, and to see whether it is worth while making financial provisions for everybody who is deprived of office when this Bill passes, and to give this exceptional treatment to this Gentleman.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 64.— (Provisions as to the Bank of Ireland.)

(1) If the Government of Southern Ireland signify their desire to acquire for the use of the Parliament of Southern Ireland the premises (hereinafter referred to as "the bank premises") of the Bank of Ireland situate in or near College Green, in the City of Dublin, they shall be entitled to do so on the fulfilment of the following conditions:—

(a) there shall be provided at the ex-pense of the Government of Southern Ireland for the use of the bank premises suitable and ready for occupation as head office of the Bank of Ireland;
(b) there shall be paid to the bank compensation in respect of the bank promises and of disturbance, after taking into consideration the value of the new premises to be provided as aforesaid;

and on the publication in the "Dublin Gazette of an Order by His Majesty in Council declaring that the said conditions have been fulfilled, the bank premises shall vest in His Majesty for the use of the Parliament of Southern Ireland.

(2) Any question as to whether the premises so to be provided are suitable or ready for occupation, or as to the amount of compensation, shall be determined by a court of arbitration consisting of one person appointed by the Bank of Ireland, one person appointed by the Government of Southern Ireland, and a judge of a Supreme Court of Justice for any part of the United Kingdom (who shall be the chairman of the court) appointed by His Majesty, and there shall be paid to the members of the court, other than the chairman, such fees or other remuneration as the chairman of the court may determine to be proper, and those fees or remuneration and any other expenses of the court shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move in Sub-section (1, a) to leave out the words "premises suitable" and insert instead thereof the words "a site and building suitable both as to situation and site and accommodation."
This is an agreed Amendment to carry out the arrangements under this Clause for acquiring the premises of the Bank of Ireland for the Southern Parliament if it is so desired.

Colonel NEWMAN: If this is an agreed Amendment I do not know with whom it is agreed. The people who are interested here are the people who have to pay the taxes in the South of Ireland. I got from the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the afternoon the fact that, presuming that the South of Ireland Parliament does not function, if the members do not take the oath of allegiance, there will be set up a nominated assembly consisting partly of members drawn from the Privy Council and partly of other gentlemen nominated either by the Privy Council or the Government. Is that nominated assembly to have its Prime Minister, its Home Secretary, its Minister without Portfolio, and all the rest? It is obvious that the only suitable place in Dublin is where the Bank of Ireland now stands. It occupies what is probably the most expensive site in Ireland. Because of its size and importance and grand character it is not a place which a few Privy Councillors and 20 other people should occupy. It may seem a small thing, but a certain amount of money will have to be provided by the taxpayers of the South of Ireland in acquiring these premises. Is it intended that members of this nominated assembly shall have power to acquire these great premises to house themselves? If so, are they to have it all to themselves? Have they to house there the Council of Ireland, an important body? Then there is the Senate. Is that also going to the Bank of Ireland?

Sir F. BANBURY: May I humbly suggest to the Government that the practice which has been maintained by the Government during the last two days of never answering questions put by Members of Parliament is quite contrary to the practice which has been followed during many generations. All the questions put have been put in a proper manner and some answer, however short, should be given.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think that charge can be substantiated. I have answered question after question, and have spoken by leave of the House over and over again on the same Amendment. I have been doing that all day long. I am very glad to answer the question, though I should have thought it was a question which hardly need have been put. We know what the framework of the Bill is. If there is no elected Parliament for Southern Ireland there will be a nominated Parliament for Southern Ireland. My hon. and gallant Friend asks me whether they will occupy these bank premises. They will obviously have to occupy some premises, but I cannot tell whether they will occupy these particular premises. This Government of Southern Ireland, whether elected or nominated, will have certain rights with regard to premises under this Bill, and, whether nominated or elected, they will exercise those rights.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2) leave out the word "premises," and insert instead thereof the words "site and buildings."— [Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

CLAUSE 66.—(Provisions as to certain officers of local authorities, universities, or colleges.)

No law made by the Parliament of Southern Ireland or the Parliament of Northern Ireland or, after the date of Irish union, by the Parliament of Ireland shall have effect so as to prejudice or diminish the rights or privileges of any existing or pensioned officer of a local authority under the provisions of the Local Government (Ireland) Acts, 1898 to 1919, or any Act relating to superannuation or retiring allowance or of any existing or pensioned officer of a university or college under the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section sixteen of the Irish Universities Act, 1908.

Captain CRAIG: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
and further all remaining grand jury county surveyors appointed by the Lord Lieutenant shall, on the passing of this Act, be entitled to retire forthwith on such full maximum pension notwithstanding any act to the contrary, provided the age of sixty has been reached, or so soon as it is reached.
This Amendment is put forward on behalf of thirteen county surveyors, nearly all of whom have attained, or about to attain, the age of sixty years. They have all had very long service, and this is the
second change which has been made in their status. They were first appointed by the Lord Lieutenant under the old Grand Juries, and after the Local Government Act of 1898 they became officials of the county councils. Many of the officials appointed by the old Grand Juries were not always welcomed by their next masters the county councils. The position of some of these people has already become very difficult, and it is more than likely that under this Bill in certain parts of Ireland their position will be more difficult still. They are all elderly men. Most of them look forward with a considerable amount of anxiety, to put it mildly, at their position under the new circumstances to be set up under this Bill. I think it would be an act of charity on the part of the Government if they would allow some of these servants to retire on the terms mentioned in my Amendment.

Major O'NEILL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HENRY: I can assure my hon. Friend that his Amendment is unnecessary. Clause 65 provides that no law made by the Parliament of Southern or of Northern Ireland shall have effect so as to prejudice or diminish the rights or privileges of any existing or pensioned officer of a local authority under the provisions, of the Local Government (Ireland) Acts, 1898 to 1919. In that way the old County Surveyors are protected. As regards officers appointed since, the Local Government Act of 1919 provides that
if any officer of a local authority who holds a pensionable office is removed from his office for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, or resigns his office with the sanction of the Local Government Board, he shall, without prejudice to any other right, be entitled to receive from the local authority an allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the salary, fees and emoluments.
That is expressly continued by Clause 65. Moreover we propose to accept the next Amendment on the Paper.

Captain CRAIG: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MOLES: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add a new Subsection—
(2) Sub-section (8) of Section Sixteen of The Irish Universities Act, 1908, and Section Eight of The Local Government
(Ireland) Act, 1919, shall, from and after the appointed day, have effect, with the substitution of the Civil Service Committee for the Treasury and for the Local Government Board and for the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
I commend this Amendment, the last one on the Paper, to the notice of my right hon. Friend as not only desirable, but necessary, and I understand he is going to accept it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Amendment can be accepted.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Might we have some explanation of the effect of this Amendment? We English Members do not know much about the Irish Universities Act.

Sir E. CARSON: You will if you read it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 69.—(Commencement of Act and appointed day.)

(1) This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed, or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, but the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be summoned to meet not later than four months after the said Tuesday, and the appointed day for holding elections for the House of Commons of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be fixed accordingly:

Provided that the appointed day as respects the transfer of any service may, at the joint request of the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, be fixed at a date later than seven months after the said Tuesday.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words
And that the appointed day as respects the provisions relating to the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom shall be a day not earlier than the day on which the Parliament of the United Kingdom is next dissolved after the passing of this Act.
This Amendment is the result of my withdrawal of the Amendment a little earlier in the evening when I accepted
the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Murray Macdonald), to allow existing Irish Members of this Parliament to continue, notwithstanding the coming into force of this Act, until a dissolution of this House.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [GRANTS]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend, the Law relating to Housing of the People, Public Health, and Local Government, and for purposes in connection therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants under Section one of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses completed within two years of the passing of that Act or such further period not exceeding four months as the Minister of Health may in any special case allow, and in respect of houses provided with the approval of the Minister of Health by local authorities for persons employed by them."—[Dr. Addison.]

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope I may appeal to the Minister of Health not now to proceed with this. We have just got 25 minutes. I have, I will not say an important speech, but I have certainly got a very earnest speech to deliver, and a large number of other hon. Members desire to join in the discussion. If we enter upon this now it cannot be with any real service at all, because my right hon. Friend cannot possibly get it to-night, and I do ask him to report progress on this matter, and to let us have a fair opportunity to discuss a most important Motion.

Sir E. CARSON: May I also appeal to my right hon. Friend to take this discussion now?

Sir F. BANBURY: May I say I have got an Amendment down? I do not say it is a very important Amendment, but, personally, I think it will have a very
considerable effect on this Resolution, which has only appeared on the Paper quite recently.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I called on Dr. Addison to move the Motion, and I allowed the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. MacLean) to ask a question, but I oannot allow a discussion.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have no wish to avoid any discussion which it is desired to raise on this question. The points which, I believe, my right hon. Friend opposite wishes to raise—whether they are in order or not, I cannot say—are certainly of considerable importance. We want to make as early progress with the Bill in Committee as we can. I am not aware there is any objection to the principle contained in the Resolution, but it does raise other important issues, which I quite agree, should be discussed. I have not the least desire to stand in the way of Members if they wish to have a proper opportunity for discussion, provided it is understood that we take the first opportunity to discuss the Resolution, and to get it through on that occasion.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It all depends, of course, on the time we get for it.

Dr. ADDISON: A reasonable time, of course, and on that understanding I am quite willing to move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Dr. Addison. ]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GOLD AND SILVER (EXPORT, CONTROL, ETC.) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is a small Bill of two Clauses, which I can explain in a few words. The first Clause deals with the export of gold and silver bullion. It may not be familiar to the House that the control over the export of gold and silver bullion which
exists to-day is regulated by Orders in Council under a provision of 1914, which expires on the conclusion of the last of the Peace Treaties, and, therefore, if it be a good thing to maintain this control of export, provision must be made in a Statute to give effect to that. I do not think there can be two opinions in this House at the moment that, anxious as we all are to see again in London a free market in gold, both for import and for export, to-day, having regard to the condition of the exchanges throughout the world, and the position of our own currency, there is no expert authority of any kind who will admit that that time is yet come. So we take power in the first Clause to deal with the situation. We propose to deal with it in this way: we make use of Section 8 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, and we add the Subsections that follow. The Government will then have power, at any time when the situation makes it necessary, to regulate by Order-in-Council the export of gold and silver bullion, and to make Regulations for controlling such exports as may be permitted by licence. I would call the attention of the House specifically to this point, that it is not making permanent this control of exports, it is only giving power to the Government to effect such a control, and at such a time as that control may be deemed necessary. I would repeat what I said a few moments ago, that we are as anxious as anyone in this House to see the day come when we may safely revert once more to the open market, which has always been the glory and the strength of finance in this country.
I am very anxious to get the Second Reading of this Bill because, in our opinion, it is essential that the Bill should be obtained before the last Peace Treaties come before this House. I will just mention one or two points which I know may in anticipation be made against this Bill. One or two newspapers in this country which are particularly interested in the settlement of commercial agreement between this country and Russia have expressed some alarm lest it would be more difficult to make this agreement with Russia if these Regulations in regard to the export of gold were made. I would point out to those who fear this that we are proposing nothing new. We are merely proposing, for the time being, the
continuation of what now exists, and what has existed before any question of any commercial agreement with Russia was thought of at all. We are imposing no restriction on Russian gold that is not equally applicable to the gold from every other country, and we are putting no difficulties in the way of this trade than are put in the way of similar trades in all other principal countries of the world, except the United States of America, whose financial position at this moment is very different from our own. Nothing that is proposed in this Bill can prejudice at all any agreement that may be arrived at, if and when such agreement is arrived at, between this country and Russia. We recognise as much as anyone that in individual cases where export under licence has ruled, there may be— possibly there are—individual hardships. At a time like this private interests must give way to the paramount public interest. We have no complaints in the office which I represent, and also, as far as I am aware, there have not been any complaints at the Board of Trade as to the method by which the licences under this Order in Council are given; but I would tell the House here that if any traders feel themselves aggrieved as to the manner in which the granting of licences is administered, any complaint to mo of unfair treatment or anything of that kind will always be examined and considered with care. I am only too grateful for any cases which may be brought to me in which traders feel that any preferential treatment or anything of that kind is alleged in any quarter.
With regard to the second Clause, it may be a surprise to hon. Members, as it was to me when I saw this Bill in draft, to find that there is no statutory power existing at the present time, apart from the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which prevents the melting up of coin. When the, Coinage Acts of 1870 were passed them were all kinds of provisions against defacing coinage and stripping coinage. At that time it would not pay anyone to melt up coins and it was a crime that did not exist, because there was no temptation to indulge in it. But to-day the position is very different, and it may be a very lucrative occupation to melt up the coinage. This is peculiarly dangerous because anything that may tend to lessen the amount of bullion in
the country would act prejudicially against our exchanges and may do damage to the state of our currency. It is of the utmost importance to safeguard our coinage, and with a view to further protecting it I have increased the penalty which, under the Defence of the Realm Act is six months' imprisonment, to a term of imprisonment for two years. I feel that there is no doubt that, in spite of the closest investigation, this is a class of crime which will be practised in certain quarters of the community. It is difficult to detect, but it is one which, when detected, ought to be punished very severely, because not only do these people obtain enormous profits, but they are conducting a business which is wholly deleterious to the interests of the country. With these few words I commend this Bill to the consideration of this House, and I trust it will be given a Second Reading.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I wish to complain of the very short notice given in regard to the introduction of a Bill of this enormous importance. This measure was circulated only yesterday morning, and I was surprised to find it down for Second Reading to-day. Only recently a manager of one of the Eastern Banks sent for me and asked me if I could give him a copy of this Bill. I told him that I did not know of any such Bill. The reply I got was that the bank had received yesterday morning a telegram from Calcutta to say that there were rumours in the market in Calcutta that the Government were introducing a Bill to regulate the export of gold and silver and bullion. In consequence of those rumours the exchange had gone up 2d. in the rupee against this country, which means an increase in the cost of many of the essential raw materials which we require to import from India. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury may be able to inform the House how it was that this news reached Calcutta before we had a copy of the Bill in the House of Commons.
It is very extraordinary that the effect of the Government control is in this, as in many other things, very prejudicial. We know that at the outset of the War, when the Government took on the control of many things, and when they went into commerce and in doing so tried to
regulate the Indian exchange by prohibiting the import of silver into India, we saw the rupee go from Is. 4d. to 2s. 7d., and we saw at the same time the rupee disappear from the markets of India and Ceylon, and business brought almost to a standstill. The first effect of the reports regarding this Bill has been that in India, where the rupee was steadily declining and business was becoming a little easier, there has been an immediate reaction and the rupee has started to rise again. The Secretary to the Treasury says he has received no protests or representations in regard to this Bill from the commercial community. I would ask how was it possible for the commercial community to make a protest against a Bill smuggled through the House of Commons 24 hours after it was printed. It was absolutely impossible, and I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone this Bill until he has heard from the commercial community as to what they consider that the effect of this legislation may be, not only on the credit but on the commerce and industries of this country. We are all agreed that at the present time it would be disastrous to attempt to export bullion or gold or silver coinage from this country. But the Government themselves are a great deal responsible for the shortage of currency from which we are suffering, as they denuded the banks and financial houses of the coin they held— I will not say against the advice of experts —no doubt they did take the advice of some experts—but in spite of the fact that there were many people who held strong views as to what the result would be of denuding this country of specie, which they were shipping away by the ton load.
The Secretary of the Treasury says that this is a temporary measure. But the Bill does not convey that impression to any business man. We know perfectly well that there is a desire on the part of some people to have a monopoly created for them for the handling of bullion in this country. I see in the papers that the House of Commons has been calling out a great deal about monopolies of different kinds. Here the House of Commons is asked to create by Act of Parliament a monopoly in favour of a small group of bullion dealers. I do not wish to say that that is the intention of the Government; but we have had experience
now for six years of the licensing of all sorts of commodities. We know the system that is adopted, and there is no security in this Bill against the system, once introduced, not being continued for an indefinite period. We know that some of these dealers have the ear of the Treasury, and they are in a position to bring their influence to bear, for an indefinite period perhaps, on the side of having this Regulation, by Order in Council, becoming almost permanent. I do not know the procedure at all— whether it is necessary to have one Order in Council, or whether it is necessary continually to have Orders in Council, but we realise that this is a very grave danger in the hands of any Government or any Government Department.
The very least the Treasury can do is to give the financial and commercial communities, and those who are most interested in the welfare of the. commerce and the industry of this country, and whose opinions can be relied upon, an opportunity of expressing their views, before the Government runs into hasty legislation to carry out a system which they themselves say they do not wish to perpetuate longer than they can possibly help. We know, if these Regulations come into force so far as this country is concerned, what will happen. Take Australia, where at the present time you have an example of Government control in the export of bullion. Perhaps it will surprise this House to know that to-day the export of manufactured goods, and all classes of goods, from this country to Australia is at a standstill, because the Australian Government has prohibited the export of gold except by licence. The result is that all the private banks of Australia have an accumulation of bullion in their coffers which the Government will not allow them to export; but the Commonwealth Government do from time to time give a licence to the National Commonwealth Bank, which is their own institution, so that they are able to export a small amount of bullion for the benefit of their customers. There are a large number of responsible and wealthy firms in this country who have obligations to meet and who have the gold lying in Australia now, but they are unable to remit a single penny to this country. The Australian banks who have branches in London—and there are many of them—are most anxious
to help the continuation of the export trade from this country to Australia, and they are being constantly asked to finance shipments of goods from this country.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate, to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (APPEAL TRIBUNAL).

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House, do now adjourn."

Mr. NEWBOULD: The matter to which I wish to draw attention is one of interest to all sections of the House, and, as I am, aware that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall be as brief as possible. The House knows that the final tribunal in all matters of pensions is the statutory Appeal Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Minister of Pensions has no control or influence over this tribunal whatsoever. He is entirely unable to answer in an authoritative manner any questions that may be put to him with regard to it by Members of this House; in fact, his one stereotyped answer to all such questions is that he has no control and no power in regard to it. That being so, it will, of course, be realised that, in raising this matter I am not in any sense criticising the Minister or his Department. I do wish, however, to bring some pressure to bear, through this House, on the Ministry or on the Prime Minister in regard to the inquiry which is now taking place into the machinery and administration of the Ministry of Pensions. The ex-service man who has a grievance docs not differentiate between that portion of the machinery of pensions which is outside the control of the Minister and that portion which is within his control. The ex-service man or the dependant takes his case through all the processes which are available in the Ministry of Pensions, and thence, possibly, to the Appeal Tribunal; but, if he is dissatisfied with the result, he does not differentiate. I know that it is not the fault of the Ministry; it is the fault of the Appeal
Tribunal, over which the Ministry has no control; but he merely blames the Ministry, and I think he is quite right in doing so.
I ask that the inquiry which the Minister has set up into the machinery and administration of his Department should be extended to bring within its scope the Lord Chancellor's Appeal Tribunal, and I do so on four grounds: first of all, on the ground of delay; secondly, on the ground of decision; thirdly, on the ground of justice to the Ministry, who are blamed for the deficiencies of the Appeal Tribunal, if there are any; and, fourthly, on the ground that any inquiry into the administration of pensions is not complete unless it comprises the whole of the machinery. With regard to the question of delay, we were told the other day that the average time which elapses between an appeal being lodged and its being heard is one month. Many of us have had cases in which the period has been very much longer than that. There is one very good reason why delay in this matter, if avoidable, should be avoided, and that is that this Appeal Tribunal is not reached until all the other processes have been exhausted, and it often takes 6, 9, or even 12 months to exhaust all the other questions, and, in the process of exhaustion, the patience of the applicant is exhausted also. If there is further delay before it reaches the tribunal after it has left the Ministry, that should and can be avoided. I have many instances of delay, and I will give a case over which I had some correspondence with the Ministry within the last week or so. The case having left the Ministry, and the applicant being advised by myself to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, went to the local Pensions Tribunal in order to get the papers to lodge the application. It was the case of a widow, and she was told that the final decision of the Ministry had not yet reached the local tribunal, and therefore she could not lodge an appeal. I had to write to the Ministry asking them why they had not informed the local appeal tribunal and the widow herself, as to their decision, so that she might get on with her appeal. Another week elapsed before I had a reply from the Ministry, in which they said they had now informed the local appeal tribunal that if the widow
would go again she could lodge an appeal. That is entirely unnecessary delay. A decision arrived at in the Ministry ought to be automatically and at once conveyed to the persons concerned so that there should be no delay. The appeal has been lodged, but there will be at least a month and possibly more before it can be heard.
In regard to the second point I wish to make, the class of case to which I want to refer is where there is a conflict of medical testimony; I mean where the applicant for a pension has medical certificates from specialists which are at variance with the verdict of the medical officers of the Ministry or the tribunal. I want to gave one case, over which I had an enormous amount of correspondence, covering a long period of time, with the Ministry—the case of Lieut. Robinson. This man first joined the Regular Army, at the age of eighteen, in 1894. At the end of his three years' service he extended it to twelve, and, of course, was medically examined and found fit before he was able to do so. At the end of twelve years he again extended to twenty-one, and was again medically examined and found fit. He was medically examined on many other occasions when he went on active service, both in Egypt and in India. He completed twenty-one years' service with the Colours on 23rd October, 1916, in the middle of the Great War, and took his discharge, but, owing to the appeals that were then being made, he joined up again almost immediately, in less than two months, as an Al man, and served for the remainder of the War. He was discharged at the end of the War as a C3 man through deafness, and he has been refused, having gone right through all the processes, and finally through the Appeal Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor, a disability pension on the ground that the deafness was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. This man served for 25½ years in the Army. He was only out of the Army for some six weeks in the middle of the War. He joined at the age of 18: he is now discharged as a C3 man, having re-engaged in 1916 as an A1 man. He is very deaf, and he is told that it is not attributable in any sense to military service. He has gone to the trouble and expense of seeing various specialists. He has a certificate from a well-known Wimpole
Street specialist, which says in effect that the deafness is, in his opinion, attributable to military service. He has two other certificates to the same effect from the assistant surgeon to the London Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, and another from the surgeon of the Westminster Hospital for Diseases of the Ear and Throat. The man never will and never can be satisfied with the result. There is a conflict of medical testimony which at least demonstrates a doubt as to whether his disability is due to military service or not. Under those circumstances, I am not surprised that this man is walking about with a grievance, and I maintain that in cases of that sort the man should have the benefit of the doubt. I am appealing to the Prime Minister, if the Minister of Pensions has not the power, to approach the Lord Chancellor and to suggest to him that he should invite the Committee of Inquiry set up by the Ministry of Pensions to extend their inquiry into this final appeal tribunal. If the Prime Minister does so, the Lord Chancellor must at once accede to his request. He must realise that an inquiry into the machinery and administration of pensions is practically futile unless it includes the whole of the machinery. Therefore, I hope that the Prime Minister will take the course which I suggest and thereby remove many of the grievances, real or imaginary, which are in the minds of many ex-service men and their dependants.

Major BARKER: I can understand this matter being brought forward, because I know that very much suffering has been involved by the delays of the Appeal Tribunal. One must also appreciate the fact that the Ministry of Pensions is not altogether to blame. The disabled men, the National Association of Discharged Soldiers, the Federation, and the Comrades of the Great War specially asked—I am speaking of the evidence before the Select Committee on Pensions—that the Ministry of Pensions should not have the power to deal with these cases of appeal. I do not know how much blame for the delay is due to the Ministry of Pensions and how much is due to the Lord Chancellor; but if the Ministry could get into touch with the Lord Chancellor and ask him to hurry up the appeals the problem would, to a certain extent, be solved. I will give
the House a case of delay which has been brought to my notice from Yorkshire. A pension was disallowed in June, 1919, and an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal was made last March. That appeal has not been heard yet, and Williamson, the man who appealed, has had to apply for parish relief. These are the sort of delays which are irritating disabled men. I am certain that if the Ministry of Pensions would got into touch with the Lord Chancellor and ask him to push forward these appeals the delays would be fewer. I do not know whether the Minister of Pensions appreciates exactly the hardship that results from these delays. When he spoke to the Lancashire Members the other day he said that three or four per cent, of the whole of the pensioners was the extent of the delay. Three or four per cent, on the number of pensions in the country would represent a great deal of suffering. Most of these appeals that have to go before the Appeals Tribunal are brought forward by men who went into the Army in no unfit condition. If the Minister of Pensions would only say that a man who went into the Army fit for service in any capacity at all is entitled to a pension if he comes out unfit for work, that would be satisfactory, but he will not say that at present. If a man, who was fit to be called up to serve, is unfit when he comes cut he ought to have a pension.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am sorry to intervene while other Members are anxious to speak, but I wish to extend the courtesy of a reply to the important point that has been raised. I am not prepared to answer without notice as to individual cases. There are 2,000,000 files at the. Issue Office. I do not carry all these things in my head. All I can say at the moment about the case of Robinson is that it is clearly a case which was examined on its merits by the Ministry, and he was not considered entitled to a pension, and afterwards this case was tried by an impartial, independent tribunal, and they agreed with that decision. When two bodies independent of each other both considered the case with the same result, the presumption is that there is something more in it than the hon. Member has had at his disposal in presenting the case.

Mr. NEWBOULD: That is why I am asking that the inquiry should be extended.

Major TRYON: The hon. Member is anxious that the Inquiry should include the working of the independent tribunal. I cannot accede to that request, because it is a Departmental Committee put up by the Minister himself with the object of doing everything within the working of the Ministry to improve the machinery. I cannot put up a Departmental Committee to inquire into the proceedings of a body set up by the House of Commons over us and independent of us. The cases, when they reach tribunals, are settled, on an average, within a month, which is about the time that it takes the County Court to deal with somewhat similar cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. If there are serious delays, as there must be in some cases, the delays to which my hon. Friend refers would be those which occur before the tribunal gets the case; that is, delays when the case is still with the Ministry. Those delays we are anxious to do all we can to avoid, and the inquiry will include the delays in this and all other eases so long as they are in the control of the Ministry. Therefore the particular delays complained of will form the subject of inquiry by the Committee, of which I hope to be chairman.
With regard to the whole position of the independent tribunal, there has been misunderstanding, not only in the country, but, as I see from some of the questions, even by Members of this House. This tribunal was set up in response to a strong demand throughout the country on the part of ex-service men, mass meetings, and organisations of ex-service men. It was recommended by a Select Committee, over which my hon. Friend presided with such great advantage to all concerned. In the Act of Parliament its decisions are enforced upon the Pensions Minister. Therefore, we claim, and my hon. Friend conceded, that it is not fair for the House of Commons to take these cases out of our hands and to say that while the appeal shall be absolutely independent of the Ministry, we should be blamed for proceedings entirely outside our control.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the hon. And gallant Gentleman aware that that is an entirely new doctrine that we have heard in this House within the last month—that
the prerogative of the Minister was taken away? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that it was distinctly announced shortly after the Select Committee reported, by the Minister, that the prerogative of the Minister had not been taken away?

Major TRYON: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. This was set up over the Pensions Minister.

Captain LOSEBY: The Minister himself stated, I think, that he was doubtful, only a week ago.

Major TRYON: ; I think his opinion was that he had not these powers. These things are not settled by the Ministry; it is an independent tribunal. With reference to the justice with which these appeals are settled, let me give a few details. When a large number of cases are being tried, and you express dissatisfaction with a particular body which is settling them, you put it aside and substitute for it some entirely different body. If on doing that you find an enormous change in the results, you would, I think, be entitled to argue, with some probability of being right, that one body or the other had been wrong, that one of the two had been either too stiff or too free in its decisions. The tribunal, which was in some way connected with the Ministry, settled cases and granted appeals at the rate of 34 per cent. Later on a new tribunal was set up. I admit that the cases change. They increase in difficulty. Instead of 34 per cent., the independent tribunal granted 30.7 per cent. There was, therefore, hardly any change in passing from one form of tribunal to another. My belief is that both types of tribunals dispensed straightforward justice to the applicants. With regard to the number of applications which are successful, I submit that now we are dealing with far more difficult cases. They are cases sometimes concerned with events of four and five years ago. We have cases of men ill now, and they very properly seek to establish connection between that illness and some of the events of the War. They are most difficult cases. Take the last six months. I have woked out the figures and this is the proportion: Of 80 cases—difficult, most of them—we granted 60 straight off. That leaves 20 unsettled. Of those 20 remaining, 17 of the applicants accepted
the decision and did not appeal; but three did appeal, and of those three which appealed one was successful. So that out of all the difficult cases coining up only one in eighty is granted by the Appeal Tribunal. I put that to the House for what it is worth. The advantage which I think we gain from this independent tribunal is this: There is the analogy of the workmen's compensation cases which go to the County Court. It was thought by the men in certain cases that there ought to be some outside body, not the Government or the employer, so to speak, or the person who had to find the money; some independent tribunal to decide their cases. An independent tribunal was established. The fact that it has not changed the results is not a fault of the tribunal, but is a tribute to the justice which had already been done. We gain by these tribunals in the confidence which we hope they give to the men. I think they ought to have confidence in them. They consist of a barrister or solicitor of seven years' standing, selected by the Lord Chancellor, and a medical man specially selected for this work. That is a point not sufficiently known. The third and very important member is a disabled officer or man. That is a court independent of the Government and of the parties who have to find the money. I submit it is a court whose independence or justice cannot lightly be challenged.

Major BARKER: Who selects the members?

Major TRYON: That is done by the Lord Chancellor. We have nothing to do with it.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: How many tribunals are there?

Major TRYON: There are thirteen now, and there will soon be fourteen, be
cause we found that Scotland needed another tribunal. Therefore, I suggest that what is wanted is, not a change in machinery, but if any part of the country is getting behind with its appeal cases, the simple thing is to add another tribunal. I think the hon. Member for West; Leyton (Mr. Newbould) was not doing a very good service to the ex-service men when he said in the House the other day:
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a case where there is a doubt the Appeal Board appointed by the Lord Chancellor invariably gives it against the applicant and not in his favour?

Mr. NEWBOULD: That is my experience in cases that come under my personal notice.

Major TRYON: That does not extend to 13 courts settling 400 cases a week. My hon. Friend's words extended to them I all, because he used the term "invariably." If he said he knew of one or two cases where justice had not been done we should have accepted his honest opinion, but in saying what he did say he was doing a very poor service to the cause which we all want to serve, namely, to gain the confidence of the ex-service men in the justice which is given them by the nation.

Mr. HOGGE: We realise the difficulties of the machinery, but it is a question of principle. The hon. Member for Sowerby put it in more elaborate words, that the one principle on which pensions ought to be fixed is this: that, if a, man was fit to fight he was fit to pension, and no machinery ought to turn down any man who was accepted for service as absolutely fit. If my hon. Friend could put that in operation we should solve a very great number of these cases.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'clock.